Generally, as we see them often today, no.

In my view, homes need to be robust things that do not drain the people living in them.

Take an extreme example, my old camp trailer: It has a fridge, heater, range, and oven that all run off propane. We love that thing, and one of the things we love about it is how simple it all is and that it basically works no matter what.

Electric power is entirely optional. We have some batteries and lights in the storage bin, and a car battery (or two if wanted) are setup and charged by the car when we tow the trailer. Otherwise, turn the gas on, and it's good for about a week on the tanks we have fitted.

It's been that way since about 1974, when it was made new.

Given the very modest annual maintenance needed, that thing is probably going to work as designed for a long time yet.

People love the thing. It's simple, cheap, works well, and is low hassle, reliable living. I've gotten offers on it pretty much every year I have taken it out where others are doing the same thing. And this is despite the thing being well used, not nice and shiny.

Most people who have offered to buy it say the same thing, and that older, gas only tech works and works and works. Yup. It does exactly that, and I have no plans on getting rid of it.

Obviously, something like this predates all the hazards we've brought along with all the new tech. And that's the point!

As a home, that old trailer is great! We can do all our living and all that trailer does is not get in the way. We get comfort, shelter, food prep and storage, cold beers, and it all runs on very simple, robust tech, requiring only fuel and some very light annual maintenance.

Our current home is simple, and when I think about enhancements to it, the last thing I want to do is complicate everything and or introduce dependencies that could fail, or need changing, or my attention, or all that, plus something I didn't know about!!

Now, a home needs to be more than that camp trailer, but it's a great model to reason from.

To me, a smart home is one that uses robust tech with no dependencies, say with optional connections to the grid.

That way, it's mostly out of the way, and the people living in it get all the comfort they need, when they need it with the fewest hassles and a cost that makes sense.

I have some items on my home project list and they are centered around the basics, off grid capable. Should things get rough, we can operate it the same way we do that older trailer and be just fine.

To me, that's a smart home.

The "smart" tech being discussed frequently today exists on a layer or two above that "home" layer, and should be entirely optional, not points of failure or dependency.

In my current home, the appliances are all older, very robust things that just work.

For savings, automation is one way forward as is more efficient tech. When I do see more efficient gear that is not encumbered "digital toaster" style, I'll upgrade, but only if it's reasonably servicable. By that, I mean being able to open the thing up and buy a replacement component.

I've had a few events like this happen, and they were all the same:

Dryer fails to heat. Open it up, check the little safety thermostat. Passed. Inspect dryer heating element. Fail. Source new element, when it shows up, install it, check, done.

Oven fails to heat consistently. Same deal, source new oven element, install it, check, done.

Mixer quit mixing. Find little gear broken, order part, install, done.

It is not all as efficient as I would like. We did go through and improve lighting, and in the colder months, just put some clothes on for a nice savings.

And I'm perfectly willing to improve efficiency, but not at the cost of smart living and or ability to service and maintain the place I live.

The place I live is the very last place I want problems and dependencies popping up. Again, robust, simple, effective, inexpensive are the key elements of a smart home.