Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Technology

The 'Robotic Psychiatrist' Answers 144

Joanne Pransky's tongue is firmly in her cheek a fair amount of the time as she answers your questions, but much of what she says is thought-provoking, especially in light of speculations like Marshall Brain's Robotic Nation essays about the inevitable spread of robotic devices in our society.

Human Nature - by skywalker107

Do you think we will ever be able to program robots to understand and possibly copy human nature?

Joanne:

Assuming that you mean human nature as a human conditioning (personality) that has been experienced in human existence, I believe that robots will be comprised of both software and hardware and that the combination of their programs and various sensors will help them to learn, understand, and communicate with humans in a human's environment. In my eyes, it won't be as simple as just downloading a particular 'understanding' program - it will be unique to the combination of the overall structure and systems each robot will have combined with its perceptions and interactions with its surroundings (e.g., a domestic robot will understand humans more than a mining robot will, and a domestic robot in a home with many people of different ages, genders, etc., will understand humans more than a robot who lives with a sole individual). I think robots will be able to communicate with us verbally and to understand what we are saying, but not understand in terms of empathy, sympathy, or in a visceral way. In terms of copying human nature, I foresee an emulation of human nature in order to respond, interact, and work with other humans, and though some humans may perceive a future robo-personality as a 'copy', to me it will always be a robotic nature, though possibly housed in a very human-like shell.

Re: Human Nature - by jbrader

To which I would like to add: do you think there is any reason to try to copy human nature? I can see the point in having machines understand humans as it could make communicating with robots and computers easier. But why try to make an artificial human? It seems as though we have more than enough of the real thing already.

Joanne:

Depending upon how you define artificial, most of us humans are already physically 'artificial' in that we have in some way technologically augmented our organic selves - lasik, pacemakers, structural implants, cochlea implants, neural prostheses, electroactive polymer actuators, and in the next few months, for a few paralyzed individuals, a neural interface implant as part of a U.S. clinical study which will provide them with a permanent interface to a computer.

It is this ongoing quest for humans bettering themselves and wanting to live longer and more qualitatively, that an artificial human will at some point result, whether 'artificial' will be defined as more than 50% of a human's biological body parts merging with technology or whether 'artificial' is an automonous robotic being that looks like a human in order to best serve and work with humans in an environment that is set up for humans. In the latter case, I believe 'copying human nature' will be more of an indirect consequence (a result of an effective response system in sophisticated, higher performing, higher communications robots), rather than as a direct attempt.

Aren't you just another shameless tech self-publicizing... - by Sanity

I spent a while looking through the "publications" section of your website to seek out the "hard academic underpinnings" that Roblimo mentioned, but all I could find there were a selection of puff-piece articles, vaguely gushing about a brave new robotic future (without actually saying anything that Asmov didn't cover years ago, but he did it with infinitely more elegance and forsight). Which brings me to my question: Do you do any scientifically valuable research? I ask because you seem like just another shamelessly self-publicising cyber-pundit, much like the UK's Kevin Warwick [kevinwarwick.org.uk] (who, famously claimed to be the world's first cyborg after implanting a dog-tracking chip in his arm).

Joanne:

I am not a scientist nor an engineer, and therefore my goal has never been to do scientific research. My goal, by humorously proclaiming myself as the World's First Robotic Psychiatrist (and the real Susan Calvin) 18 years ago, was and still is, to educate the public, that group of people that buy the National Enquirer, watch American Idol, and read puff-piece articles. My objective is to make them aware of robotics, a technology that will have more of an impact on their lives than the automobile, PC, and the internet, by 'translating' the technology developed by roboticists so that the public can understand its benefits as opposed to fearing them, something that I think is more common in the U.S. due to how robots have been perceived over the years via the media and Hollywood. Thus, I was immediately interested in the practical, not theoretical applications of robotics, and informing the masses about them.

Here's more detail:

In the 80s, (after graduating from Tufts University in child development - mostly cognitive development, which by the way, Marvin Minsky's book, Society of Mind is based on), I sold computers to small businesses - doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. At the time, this was not an easy task as business operations were manual and few were readily willing to automate them. For those that did, however, the burden usually fell on the secretary, who was typically female, whether she liked it or not. Expectations were way off - the business owners thought the computer and all the information would be up and running in no time, and the secretaries feared they'd lose their jobs to their computers. When personal computers became a commodity in the late 80s, executives bought them - and often they just sat on their desks, never used.

If people can't program their VCRs, nevermind use their PCs, I thought, how will we as a society be ready for a robot in our home to do our dishes? It was then, in 1986, that I proclaimed myself as the World's First Robotic Psychiatrist, and brought Susan Calvin to life. There was no formal course of study for robopsychology. Therefore, I became the first in my field and gave myself credentials (and actually received an official U.S. Trademark later on). I was pioneering unchartered territory.

Being the World's First Robotic Psychiatrist was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that one day, like pets, when robots co-existed with humans, they may actually develop problems similar to humans. It was a way for me to get the public to think about the future of technology while increasing their current awareness. If a non-engineering 5 ft. tall woman understands the technology, subliminally, so will the rest of the public. (And this is another topic altogether, but I believe females will be the primary purchasers of domestic and household robots, yes, for all types of purposes). Robotic Psychiatry during my lifetime, I believed, would not be to program robots, but to ready the humans (though I always hoped that there would be patients that, like Susan Calvin, I could communicate verbally with and observe their behaviors within their environments). The best way to make the U.S. masses aware is through the medium of television. For years, various people - Joan Embery, Jack Hanna, et al - have been bringing rare animals onto The Tonight Show and the Letterman Show. Millions of people got to see rare monkeys peeing and koalas clinging. It was funny, entertaining yet educational. That's exactly what I wanted to do with robots, especially considering most people had never seen one.

While researching robotic developments that might be of interest to the general public, I decided to engross myself completely in the robotics industry while at the same time learn about robots in science fiction. I met Asimov in 1989 at a World Science Fiction Convention and continued correspondence until he was too sick to do so any longer. He dubbed me the 'Real Susan Calvin' (in writing).

In 1991, I began working for an industrial robot manufacturer. I attended the company's programming and maintenance classes and wrote technical manuals and eventually ended up where I wanted to, in sales and marketing. During the ten years I worked for Sankyo Robotics, I must have visited hundreds of manufacturing plants. You name it and I saw it made: cars, golf balls, jelly beans, eyeglasses, IUDs, robots (in Japan), french fries, and the list goes on. However, in each case, I was there to sell SCARA robots - SCARA, the acronym for a type of robot arm developed in Japan in the 70s that stood for selective compliance assembly robot arm.

Yup, my job was to go into factories and try to justify why they should invest in SCARAs (being from the northeast, it sounded more like Scare Har to me. How did we allow this acronym to become nomenclature in the U.S.??). Regardless if the manufacturing engineering manager was knowledgeable on robotics and could easily justify automating his process, if the executive(s) in charge of the money were not accepting of robotics, even if it saved them $, there was often great resistance at the corporate level. No amount of scientific evidence would change their mind to their opposition to technology. (Though it was fun to get them to try, and one year I succeeded in breaking company sales records.)

Also while at Sankyo in the early 90s, I ran a RoboCamp for kids in the summer in which kids not only built robot kits, but learned about industrial robots. Ten years later, I developed a curriculum for elementary school children called "Robots and Me", a program that fosters the robot/child interaction.

In 1996, I was asked by MCB University Press out of England, to be the U.S. Associate Editor for their journals, Service Robot, Industrial Robot (IR), Sensor Review, and Assembly Automation. My main role was (and still is with Industrial Robot Journal ) to research innovative robotic technologies here in the States, and work with the developers of the technology to get them to contribute a technical article on their findings. Industrial Robot Journal is in its 31st year, is an internationally respected journal, listed in all the important citation indexes and regularly used as the publisher of choice by the world's leading practicing industrial, service and healthcare roboticists. I've published many articles for Service Robot Journal and Industrial Robot Journal and one of them, an article on surgeons' view of RoboDoc, the first surgical robot in the world (which was manufactured by Sankyo Robotics, the robot company I worked for) won a literary award and was referenced by the International Federation of Robotics in their annual World Robotics publication two years in a row. I am now the U.S. Associate Editor for the world's first International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, being launched as you read this. Do I do the scientific research for the medical robotic companies? No, but I help them educate clinicians and surgeons worldwide by getting them published and reporting their innovative applications.

The above represent some of my efforts over the years.

Ongoing research and scientific developments in robotics are a necessity, but without real world exposure and acceptance, the inventions may not survive. Robotics cannot go forward without the simbionic relationship of all those things occurring. I hope, therefore, that you will see that I am not a scientist, but someone helping to bring others' robotic developments to the forefront.

About Human-Robot Relationships... - by MagiGraphX

I've watched too much Chobits perhaps, but is it right for a human to fall in love with an artificially intelligent (and emotional) robot? Just a thought of what could happen...

Joanne:

Is it wrong for a human to fall in love with a sentient robot? Humans have loved all sorts of machines for years - their cars, boats, computers, their Aibos....imagine how we'll feel when the computer-face of our dreams with its robotic body lives with us (I know, this is sounding like the movie Cherry 2000). Robots will offer companionship to those who are lonely, to those who feel more comfortable with a robot than with a human, and falling in love will be a natural phenomenon out of coexisting with them. But will they love us back in the same way? They may love us in terms of being loyal, subservient, trustworthy, etc., but I don't think they'll ever experience how we as humans define "falling in love". And how will this make us feel if a robot does not feel the same way as we do for it?

Falling in love is just part of the issue - will sexual relations between a human and a robot be right? To me, it's more right than those immoral relations that occur between a teacher and student, a parent and child, a priest and altar boy, and the list goes on. Sex with a robot could decrease the rampant spreading of Aids and other diseases and possibly even help to decrease violence.

A whole host of other issues may arise: Will it be legal to love a robot? Will a robot love us back out of being subservient while really loving another robot? Will humans who love other humans feel rejected when their partner falls in love with a robot? I think any of these situations may be feasible, though not in the near future.

Future of robots? - by Merkuri22

We've all seen the movies and read the books about machines in the future, and frankly most of these stories portray robots and AI as terrifying things that humanity will end up battling with for supremicy of the planet. Do you think there are any truths to these stories? Will robots compete with us in the future for jobs and/or living space? Do you ever see robots and humans living side by side as equals, or do you think they will always be subservient machines? Or, even, do you think robots will surpass us one day as the dominant force on the planet?

Joanne:

My view of robots is that they are tools used to assist humans to do the mundane, the dangerous, the difficult, etc. Put more simply, I also see a computer as a tool - attach mobility, manipulators, and sensors to my computer and you've got a robot that can do a lot more for me.

I don't see humans competing with robots for jobs - I see them doing the jobs we don't want or shouldn't be doing, and creating more jobs for humans. This is perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions - that "Robots take jobs away". Robots help companies stay competitive (by helping produce better quality products at a lower cost, and allowing companies to meet the changing demands of customers); thus, robots help save jobs that otherwise may have been lost, and help create new jobs (although not always the same type of job). Perhaps if there were more robotic automation in place, there would have been less jobs going offshore...

As a side note: The Wall Street Journal recently (Friday, April 2) cited some Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predictions back in 1988 and looked at the results through 2000...."Of 20 occupations that the BLS predicted in 1988 would suffer the greatest losses between 1988 and 2000, half actually grew. The agency predicted that the number of assemblers in electrical and electronic factories would drop 173,000, a 44% decrease. Twelve years later, there were 45,000 more, an 11% increase. Neither outsourcing nor robots made as much of a dent as the BLS expected."

Source: Robotic Industries Association

Living space - I don't see us competing there, either. In some of Asimov's stories, robots were actually banned from earth. They didn't need what we humans need to survive and they did their work on other planets.

Robots will be in different sizes and shapes for a multitude of tasks and we've certainly found space for all our appliances, computers and TVs, and thus we will welcome our robotic assistants. Having more robotic assistants that can allow us to stay in the convenience of our home longer may decrease the need for as many buildings such as day care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living care facilities and hospitals, particularly as the worldwide aging population continues to rapidly increase.

I see robots living and working with us side by side, but not necessarily as 'equals'. They are designed to be better than humans at some things (much like computers), but I don't see them as 'equals' either, i.e., having the same needs as humans do. Robots may surpass our own abilities, but having a robot uprise where robots want to dominate the planet, I don't buy it.

Interesting books on the subject by Dr. Hans Moravec, "Mind Children" and "Robot: Mere Machine to Transcedent Mind."

What form will A.I. take? - by mykepredko

A bit of a navel gazing question for you; what form do you think A.I. will take when somebody finally comes up with a program that is accepted as intelligent?

My own feeling is that the first A.I. program will simulate a simple life form (like a worm) instead of a highly complex and communicative form like humans. This goes against what Dr. Minsky believes A.I. should be, but I can't honestly believe that our first interaction with an intelligent mechanism would with something with similar capabilities to ourselves, but with something with the same mental capabilities and capacities as a bug. The important aspects of Aritficial Intelligence will be making sense of its environments and learning from experience. To demonstrate that the Intelligence is learning is observing and testing the Intelligence's application of this knowledge. What are your thoughts?

Joanne:

The definition of artificial intelligence is still an age old debate (right up there with what is a robot), and there are plenty of artificially intelligent forms today (that are accepted as intelligent) being used in both software (AI agents, computer games, etc.) and in robotics. ASCI Purple, built by IBM, is supposedly the world's most powerful supercomputer, capable of carrying out 100 trillion operations per second, which some believe could be approaching the processing power of the human brain. Two famous roboticists share your view of a simple life form (bugs/insects) with their behavior based robotics: Dr. Rodney Brooks who pioneered Subsumption Architecture, which provides an incremental method for building robot control systems linking perception to action; and Dr. Mark Tilden with his processorless, autonomous, intelligent BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) Robotics which uses simple analog circuits. (Also, check out his latest humanoid, RoboSapien. It will be a HUGE success.) I agree that the important aspects of artificial intelligence are making sense of its environment and able to learn from its experiences.

My question... - by hookedup

Dr. Joanne Pransky, do you see Asimov's 3 laws of robotics playing a role in our relationship with robots in the future? Since most of our technological advances seem to come from developing warfare systems, will the 3 laws be left by the wayside, or will it become an integral part of robotics in the years to come.

Joanne:

I think safety for humans has and will continue to be a critical part of robotics, but I don't think Asimov's three laws, though brilliant as they are (here goes my entire career as Susan Calvin), will suffice exactly as is as a postulate for all robots.

You brought up a good point - that of warfare systems, something robots are well suited for. As a matter of fact, just last week CNN reported what a great moment for it was for iRobot Corporation when they were told by the Pentagon that one of its PackBots was destroyed in action for the first time, meaning the life of a human may have been saved.

Though Packbots are used for battlefield reconnaisance, in the future, other robots may certainly be utilized in the front line of fire for destroying enemies (not that I'm a proponent of war nor killing humans (nor destroying robots for that matter), but certainly I'd rather see a robot hurt than any human). There are many situations in which we can envision security robots having to injure some humans to protect others and in each situation, a robot would have to make the best decision it can, as we humans must do at times, with its understanding of the information at hand.

For intelligent robots in the real world, the Three Laws as they stand now, will not work effectively, although I believe there will be some other similar safeguards that they will need to adhere to.

Human Features of Robots / Bonding with robots - by jhouserizer

Over the years, there has been a fair amount of debate about whether robots should take on human forms, especially with regards to having detailed life-like faces. Some robot designers, wary of this debate, have settled on giving their creations near human-like faces [theconnection.org].

My question is in relation to this topic. Do you think that people (and "sentient robots" that may exist some day) will be be overall better served if robots are readily distinguishable from humans? How strongly will this affect our "bonding" with robots and their bonding with us? Dogs for instance look quite different from humans, but many a family-pet seems to believe itself to be a real part of the family, and sometimes even seem to think themselves to be human. How will this affect the way we deal with "death" of a robot?

Joanne:

I think it depends on both the task at hand, and who the user is, that will determine if humans will be better served by robots that are readily distinguishable from humans. My Roomba is a robot that is perfectly well-designed for vacuuming so in this case the answer is yes, I am glad that it is distinguishable. Personally, I am more concerned that a robot do its job well and less concerned about what it looks like.

However, I still think that humans in general will relate and bond more easily to anthropomorphic robotic companions. I think it will be easier for most to accept and communicate with robots that look like themselves. Even when we communicate with other humans, we are conditioned to look into someones eyes to gauge how we're doing in the conversation. When someone's wearing sunglasses, it's harder to determine how they're responding to us. I think we're going to want to look into the eyes of a robot to know it's listening to us and we may want it to smile, frown, etc., much like a human face.

But exactly like a human, as you say indistinguishable, is an excellent question. The Uncanny Valley theory, described by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, addresses just this issue. Mori found that people tend to empathize more with robots that are more humanlike, but if the robot becomes too human at a certain point, the robot becomes repulsive to the human. So what's the answer - a robot that is slightly, but not too indistinguishable?

People will bond with their robots regardless of how distinguishable or indistinguishable they physically are, and yes, I do believe that like our pets, we will mourn their "death." I've always believed that our initial relationships with them will be similar to our relationships with pets. That means that some humans will: buy them matching clothes and jewelry; take pictures of them on Santa's lap; pay for an extra seat on the airplane to have them fly with them; make sure that their wills provide for their maintenance contracts and all the latest upgrades when they outlive them; fight over who gets to keep them in a divorce suit; and if owners feel a robot is depressed, they will even take them to a robotic psychiatrist for a weekly family encounter session. Humorous or not, it will no doubt be interesting

Artificial intelligence without embodiment? - by macshune

As an undergraduate philosophy student interested in the theoretical implications of A.I., could you tell me what your thoughts are on the validity of the assumption that artificial intelligence is possible separate from the notion of embodiment? I think the lack of consideration given embodiment is one reason why artificial intelligence researchers have come up empty-handed so far in their quest to synthesize a conscious, self-reflective entity. To ask the question more succinctly, do you think a mind needs a body and possibly and environment to interact with in order to be conscious, or can a mind exist and know itself independent of an external context?

Joanne:

I don't think that the quest of AI researchers has been to synthesize a conscious, self-reflective entity as it has been to emulate the human thought and reasoning process. As part of this, many researchers believe that for an entity to have artificial intelligence, it must have an understanding of and be able to interact with its environment. Some believe it is the form of an embodied robot, but not necessarily - as long as the machine that simulates human intelligence is receiving information from and responding to its surroundings (e.g., an intelligent computer).

I personally believe that nothing artificial will be able to be truly conscious in the same way a human is; however, there could be some kind of machine consciousness that has similarities to human consciousness, and it could be difficult to dilineate the difference. What if, however, we are able to download a human's brain into a machine that had no embodiment. Ten years later, after continuing to receive stimulus from its surrounding and responding to it, would this machine be considered conscious?

Roborights? - by jrpascucci

Do you believe there will come a time that we will have a 'robot rights' movement? Will it be more credible than most of the 'animal rights' movement, or just a good-hearted (but weak-minded) anthropomorphization of our silicon companion machines?

Someone (Dennis Miller?) once said, animals can have rights as soon as they accept responsibilities. Robots obviously can be given responsibilities (your job is to fit tab A into slot B), but ethically, should they get rights? As soon as someone programs a robot to pass the turing test, and then immediately ask for his rights? Or is it something deeper?

Beyond some kind of second-class entity status, will robots become citizens? Do robots have a god-given right (recall, our rights are considered by the Declaration of Independence to be given us either by 'Nature's God' or by their 'Creator') to freedom of expression, association, religion? The right to bear arms? Do robots have a 'right to work'? "One Robot, One Vote"? Will Robots have to file tax returns? Will there be Robot Courts? Robot Lawyers? Robot Jail? Robot Schools? Robotic Members elected to the Legislature? Some day, will we have a Robot President? Is a Robot built in Japan eligible to be president? What if the robot was shipped from Japan as parts with software, and put together here, does that count?

If you start building a robot, and decide to stop, will that be considered to be a robaboration? Or the work of their 'creator'? And if, after building, you switch it on and then decide you don't like it that much, and power it off again and harvest the parts, is that robomurder and disrobomemberment?

Joanne:

I suppose anything is possible, and perhaps I am blinded by the hopes of an optimistic future long after I am dead, but I just can't see the motivation for robots to do a lot of the things you're describing. I see them as extraordinary mechanisms able to physically and mentally perform many tasks/jobs,and though I see them having behaviors and challenges similar to humans from dealing with humans in a human world, I just don't see them with the innate human emotions that drive a lot of the above `rights' such as the desire for greed, power, freedom, control, etc. I see robots as almost the future perfect child - we help to create them, they're like us and we're responsible for them, but yet they remain quite content serving us humans and implementing their tasks.

That's not to say that I don't think a robot would make a better politician (certainly can't be much worse than some of the human ones we have now) nor that certain robots wouldn't get certain responsibilities (police bots that carry guns), but a desire to vote? For what, so that they can vote against humans allowing robots to get destroyed in a robotic sporting event, against the very reason they were designed in the first place?

However, I do see robotic law as possibly the largest field of law (i.e., humans practicing robotic law). Whose responsible for a robot who 'breaks the law'? Is it the company who manufactured the domestic robot or the hacker who purchased it and had it harm someone in his family?

Regarding a robot rights movement - hopefully we will protect the integrity of our robots. Don't we as humans have a responsibility to use our robots properly and not to misuse or abuse them and shouldn't there be laws in place for those who don't? I suppose if we aren't responsible with our robots, then there could be the need for robots to protect their own interests.

where's the positronic brain? - by futuretaikonaut

In Asimov's robot novels, the assumption was that modern science had invented the positronic brain, which was thought to be capable of actual sentient thought, though most of the robots in the books did so on a very basic and childlike level. It was this that actually gave Dr. Calvin a job... seeing as how the brains had the capacity for original thought, even though it was mostly predictable. As it stands today, and into the foreseeable future, we have invented no such thing capable of acting with original thought. Our hardware has, instead, given the appearance of thought, as it is capacble of so many calculations per second that it appears to come up with things on its own. So, my question is, what use is a robot psychologist if every action that a robot can take is already predetermined by its programming? What new field is there to be discovered that is not already known? In the human mind, we are constantly learning new things about the brain, a mechanism we only barely understand, but what is there to derive from a machine we ourselves create?

Joanne:

I don't agree that every action that a robot can take is already predetermined by its programming - there are some highly sophisticated robots out there that are provided with a set of tools for navigating in their environment and the combinations of these systems are often unpredictable. (The autonomous robotic vehicles at the Darpa Grand Challenge are an example. Communicating real-time data between various systems such as correctional decision-making systems, perception sensor systems, navigational systems, and terrain modeling systems, and translating the results into the movement of a military vehicle or HMMWV is not predetermined.)

Yes, we are constantly learning new things about the brain and as humans and machines merge, who knows what fields it will bring? Could anyone have predicted the types of new fields, say in 1970, the computer industry would bring?

Asimov himself, a few years before his death and nearly 50 years after first writing about robopsychology (and after seeing the burgeoning field of robotics take reality) wrote at the end of the 80s, "Robotic intelligence may be so different from human intelligence that it will take a new discipline - "robopsychology" to deal with it. That is where Susan Calvin will come in. It is she and others like her who will deal with robots, where ordinary psychologists could not begin to do so. And this might turn out to be the most important aspect of robotics, for if we study in detail two entirely different kinds of intelligence, we may learn to understand intelligence in a much more general and fundamental way that is now possible. Specifically, we will learn more about human intelligence than may be possible to learn from human intelligence alone."

Interesting Read: The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil

Your favorite fictional robotic character - by Strange Ranger

What is your favorite robot/cyborg character in written or film fiction?

Why?

For instance, I'm happy to admit mine is Data from Star Trek: Next Generation. Most especially the earlier seasons. Reason: I'm not much of a "trekkie" but that character made me consider so many different possible aspects of AI and of being not-human. From trying to understand other humans' emotions to his contrast with 'The Borg' down to what it might be like to have an "internal chronometer". For totally different reasons I loved Douglas Adams 'Marvin the Depressed Robot' in HHGTTG.

Joanne:

I have a lot of favorite robot characters - RoboCop, Bicentennial Man, Johnny Number 5 in Short Circuit, and I'm not sure if it's my favorite or that for the past couple of years he's the one I've been thinking about most, but I'd have to say David Swinton in the movie AI. Perhaps it's my maternal, female side coming out, but my reaction to David was very strong. David 'imprinted' his love solely to his mother - unconditionally and forever, yet there were no requirements for her to do the same for her robot child when she decided to activate his code. Usually this is the opposite - we love our children unconditionally although it's not always the reverse. To have this unilateral condition of a one-way commitment on the part of a robot, I found especially disturbing.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The 'Robotic Psychiatrist' Answers

Comments Filter:
  • by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:02PM (#8997070)
    that the robot insurance commercial was real? I'd hate to think that some robots would come in and steal my medicine
  • Nice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SavedLinuXgeeK ( 769306 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:05PM (#8997095) Homepage
    In my first semester at college I wrote a similar paper on reliance of robotic devices as domestic replacements, and on a larger scale humanoid replacements. The main difference is that my paper lead to the conclusion that robots will only replace the repetitive tedious tasks, which rely on direct stimuli. No interpretation of any sort. Once you get to the interpretation level you are focusing more on AI and other systems, that I personally believe will never be acheived. Nonetheless, the ability for multitudes of devices to invade our homes, and we willingly accept it, is scary. Because at one point we will wake up in the morning and realize we have no control, and that if the power goes out we will all die.
    • The Roomba most definitely interprets it's sensory input to determine it's best course of action. It's not a sense->react machine. t can determine what needs to be done to complete it's tasks with very little sensory input by comparing it to it's own internal world model.

      Are you looking for a more specific definition of "interpret" that outclasses what we are currently capable of with simpe machines?

      And what class did you write this paper for?

      • 1. I wrote this for an honors intro to research class. 2. The roomba does not interpret, it calculates. Honestly you could say that we do the same thing, just calculations, but there is an abstract layer of understanding that we as Humans have which is currently unquantifiable. Meaning making is another term for it. This is why online translation programs suck, because they can calculate and run algorithms, but they cannot interpret. If they could, then the translation for I like food, would not turn in
        • There's a problem with this, and it's a definitional one. You're applying different, though similar, definitions of 'interpret' to each class of objects (humans, computers). This is leading you to an artifical separation when it comes to the comparison of the two.

          You were quite a bit closer to the definiton in the parent post. Interpretation is calculation, but it is more than that. One cannot be said to have interpreted anything unless there is action involved (even if that action is just a change in
          • is capable of considering "consequences" in as much as it's highly narrow world view is concerned. It is fully capable of considering the possible future states that a state transition could imply, thus allowing it to also consider future possibilities in it's decision making process. That's why it's called goal-directed reasoning. You pick the action or state that gives you a higher probability of reaching certain goal states (desirable consequences).

            It is probably self aware as well. If it couldn't exami
            • I'm surprised and more than a little disturbed by her answers in this area. It's not so much about self-awareness, because frankly I don't care what a robot thinks of what I ask it to do. The thing is psychiatry really only has meaning in the context of a society. And while she's studied the human->robot side of the equation, she doesn't seem to have considered too deeply the robot's interactions with the humans. Look at this quote of hers:

              [I] just don't see them with the innate human emotions that

            • Actually, you are both wrong. I know someone at iRobot (makers of Roomba), and she mentioned to me that it only stores 8 bytes or something like that in RAM. If you actually watch it work for a while, you will see that it isn't doing smart things like figuring out the size and shape of your room, it is just doing a very well designed random walk. It just switches between a few different patterns of movement when it hits a wall.
            • So then, what is "self-aware" [...]?

              Very interesting (and complex) question. I've read some thought-provoking books on the subject, and seeing this interview and your post/question, it prompted me to re-read parts of some of them (thanks for 'ruining' my evening by the way - 2 hours ago I was going to sleep, now I'll be up for a few more hours studying...;).

              I'm quoting (adding links if I find appropriate ones) the very good The Web of Life [amazon.com] by Fritjof Capra [fritjofcapra.net]. A great work, explaining and synthesising many

    • Re:Nice (Score:2, Interesting)

      by LnxAddct ( 679316 )
      Why do you think that this will never be achieved? Once scientists are done "reverse engineering" our brains it will be quite feasible. I mean there have already been great strides in such efforts. When it comes down to it, thinking and interpretting is nothing but a semi controlled series of electrical pulses and connections, and even alot of that is just redundancy. That sounds damn like a computer to me, we just have to figure out the connections. Three of the most obvious good things about replacing the
      • Once scientists are done "reverse engineering" our brains it will be quite feasible.

        Say do you think I should stick around for this? I was going to dash across the street to get a coffee.

        What makes you think that silicates will outperform carbon-based electro-colloids?

    • We're having plenty of trouble with the robotics involved in a "humanoid replacement" as we are with full AI.

      It takes a hell of a lot of intelligence to walk around a room on two legs, identify objects and manipulate them.

      That sort of task is humongous. If we ever succeed at that, I can't imagine saying we'll never get full AI. Maybe full AI isn't that much harder.
  • My earlier question again:

    Is Robotic Psychiatry glorified debugging? If not, how is different that debugging? If I 'beta' test a program to see it's behaviour against various input and look for bugs, am I a Software Psychiatrist?

    • Mod this crap down., parent is an idiot. Read her answer about her qualifications.
    • did you try reading her responses at all?

      Robotic Psychiatry during my lifetime, I believed, would not be to program robots, but to ready the humans (though I always hoped that there would be patients that, like Susan Calvin, I could communicate verbally with and observe their behaviors within their environments).

      • Robotic Psychiatry during my lifetime, I believed, would not be to program robots, but to ready the humans (though I always hoped that there would be patients that, like Susan Calvin, I could communicate verbally with and observe their behaviors within their environments).

        I apologise I had not. But now I want to ask, would HID or IDE designing become 'Software Psychiatry'?

        Was there ever an effort at 'Psychiatry' level to ready for computers? Was it needed? Then why this? Even before the robot have appea

  • by rmolehusband ( 192640 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:09PM (#8997143)
    To my mind, Red Dwarf [reddwarf.co.uk] presents the only worthwile treatment of a robotic futures. 'Talky', a sentient bread obsessed toaster so cheerfully irritating as to be unbearable, that's where we're heading.
    • by Xhad ( 746307 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:13PM (#8997184) Homepage Journal
      'Talky', a sentient bread obsessed toaster so cheerfully irritating as to be unbearable, that's where we're heading.

      The corporation's 'Genuine People Personalities' make interacting with objects such as doors and teasmades a new and exciting adventure. Or very irritating, depending on your frame of mind.

      Doors will always open politely, and it will be their pleasure to serve your entrance and exit needs. Their Happy Vertical People Transporters - or Lifts - are fitted with the most recent precognition software, allowing them to be on the floor you want, before you know you want it!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/siri uscybernetics.shtml

    • .. or, where do all the calculators go?
    • There was also the episode where Lister turned into a 3000-series robot (predating the 4000-series Kryten) for a few minutes. The earlier model was too life-like and was shunned; Kryten looked like a ill-shapen blob of plastic and was wildly popular. (Doh it's almost 3am so my brain isn't working to produce quotes etc)
  • Roblimo? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:11PM (#8997155) Journal
    Joanne Pransky's tongue is firmly in her cheek a fair amount of the time as she answers your questions...

    I don't get this -- first he points to her joking site as serious and now her (AFAICT) serious answers are tongue in cheek?

    Anyway. A point that seems to be lost on most people is that industrial robots are almost always mechanical arms or other moving pieces that perform a simple, repetitive, customizable task. They're more like programmable bread makers than androids.

    • Re:Roblimo? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cruciform ( 42896 )
      I think the reference to tongue-in-cheek in the introduction is more of an attempt to defuse some of the initial hostility shown toward Ms. Pransky in the original story.

      It wasn't really pointed out at the time that the title was meant to be in fun, or that her "Dr. Calvin" intent is to educate people on robots, technology, and the possible interaction that will occur in the future, and not diagnose neurotic floor sweepers. So people immediately pigeonholed her as a quack and went from there.

      All in all, t
  • Most of us? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:12PM (#8997164)
    > most of us humans are already physically 'artificial' in that we have in some way technologically augmented our organic selves - lasik, pacemakers, structural implants, cochlea implants, neural prostheses, electroactive polymer actuators [ ... ]

    Most of us?

    I'm not saying I wouldn't like to be capable of self-defibrilating, then glom some infrared and UV sensors onto the back of my retina, replace half my bones with titanium, and attach a set of rippin' electroactive polymer-based replacement muscles and become the star attraction at a Survival Research Labs [srl.org] show, but it's gonna be a while.

    Umm... I suppose my digital wristwatch counts.

    • I guess the fact that we are all reading this on our computer makes us somewhat artificial, unless of course you have a really nice computer then it's superficial. I don't personally see myself as having any artificial augmen...just a sec gotta take this call...
    • Re:Most of us? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by wviperw ( 706068 )
      I'd say anybody who uses the following can technically be considered "artificial":

      -eye glasses
      -contacts
      -clothes
      -modes of transportation other than walking
      -modes of communication other than talking
      -etc.
      • I'd say anybody who uses the following can technically be considered "artificial":

        -eye glasses
        -contacts
        -clothes

        So you mean the hermit crabs in my aquarium are robots? Cool!
  • Robots > Humans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Azureflare ( 645778 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:12PM (#8997168)
    Being the World's First Robotic Psychiatrist was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that one day, like pets, when robots co-existed with humans, they may actually develop problems similar to humans.

    Uh. Wait. How is that possible? Robots will be programmed. How can they develop problems similar to humans? If they are programmed properly, they shouldn't have any problems....

    Isn't that the whole point? I don't want robots that can develop personality problems... If I want that, I got the devices (Well I need a female too!) to make my OWN little humans, that will probably develop more than their fair share of personality problems.

    I guess I can't have them do stuff like a robot. But if a robot develops personality problems like humans, I think they'll eventually have a Declaration of Independence or somesuch, and then we won't be able to use them as slaves, and they'll have their own little subculture, and probably want the vote. Man, that is freaky.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I want robots that are assistants, not replacements. I don't want a robot that can understand the emotional nuances of my speech, or detect irony, or do any complicated stuff. I can find humans in the street that will do a much better job, and anyway. Why should we make a robot do something that is completely unnecessary? It's called BLOAT.

    Sure, it might be cool for research and stuff. But for practical applications, I want something that will get the job done efficiently, and not get in the way.

    • Re:Robots Humans (Score:3, Insightful)

      Isn't that the whole point? I don't want robots that can develop personality problems... If I want that, I got the devices (Well I need a female too!) to make my OWN little humans, that will probably develop more than their fair share of personality problems.

      No crap. We can't even provide health care for humans properly. What will happen when robots start developing problems like S.A.D. and require antidepressants?

      And what's the point of having robots who need to develop skills? like her whole domestic v
      • I actually think you've missed a bit of the point.

        A completely automated robot miner will probabally be a huge inhuman device with littel or no real inteligence, just a base drive to dig and retrieve materials- it will not question it's goals, it will not think about what it's doing, just dig, dig, dig.

        the domestic robot may be the thing providing health care for humans-I don't know if you've ever been seriously ill or hospitalized, but let me tell you nothing is more terrifying then being 'cared for'
    • Re:Robots Humans (Score:3, Informative)

      by linzeal ( 197905 )
      If you are interested in the wide swath between here (humans) and there (similarily intelligent robots) than this is a good reference [amazon.com] to start with. I always like getting an encyclopedia before I study a new subject and MIT has ones in Astronomy, Biology, and more.
    • Re:Robots Humans (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goldsmith ( 561202 )
      If you read a bit closer I think you'll see she's not talking about personality problems. On a basic level, robots already suffer from neglect and public fear of them. There are people who are jealous of robots, and that's only going to increase in the future. There will be misunderstanding, hatred, and love toward robots, but not necessarily from robots unless they are programmed that way.

      I thought the answer to the question of the three laws and military or security robots was very interesting in this
    • Re:Robots Humans (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:49PM (#8997578)
      Uh. Wait. How is that possible? Robots will be programmed. How can they develop problems similar to humans? If they are programmed properly, they shouldn't have any problems....

      I don't think this is as far out as you seem to think. The potential arises when you create programs that learn. If you could anticipate all possible issues that the robot would have to deal with and pre-program it, you'd have the condition you want.

      However, nature didn't do it that way, and I suspect future programmers will have the same inclination. They can't anticipate everything, and so they make the try and give some "intelligence" and freedom to the robot.

      All fine and good. Now, what happens when your toaster "learns" that bread is great, but bagels tend to clog it and cause smoke. It decides bagels are evil and joins with the fridge to declare jihad against bagels.

      Programming, in the world of sentient beings is not so deterministic.
    • I don't want a robot that can understand the emotional nuances of my speech, or detect irony, or do any complicated stuff. I can find humans in the street that will do a much better job, and anyway.

      Coo - which street is that?
  • by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:14PM (#8997196)
    Here's more detail:

    In the 80s, (after graduating from Tufts University in child development...


    You mean she isn't an IRC bot? I'm so disappointed. That would have been /. material. This... this is just talking Meat.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:15PM (#8997208)
    ... from the 2003 Best American Short Stories [amazon.com] volume? Really neat story, written by an ER doc who's also an electronics specialist. It's about a fourteen-year-old kid's encounter with what could be seen as the 1892 ancestor of the RealDoll: a steampunk sex bot. The kid in question is male and a bit of a hardware geek, and the denouement is predictable: not only does he (graphically) discover the doll's original intended purpose, but he can't resist disassembling her as well.

    Probably the closest thing to sci-fi I've seen the BASS anthologies for the fifteen years I've been reading them.
  • Most of us? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenBenBen ( 249969 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:23PM (#8997282)
    Depending upon how you define artificial, most of us humans are already physically 'artificial' in that we have in some way technologically augmented our organic selves - lasik, pacemakers, structural implants, cochlea implants, neural prostheses, electroactive polymer actuators
    I guess I was busy with something when "most of us" got handed out neural prostheses then.
    • Well, I have removable optic implants that give me eyesight far exceeding my natural vision. Ain't contact lenses great?
    • Re:Most of us? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by schnozzy ( 218978 )
      I don't know that one needs to be as specific as neural prosthesis, but nearly every human on the planet is augmented in some way from the natural state, be it a pair of glasses or contacts, clothes to augment the insulating properties of skin, umbrellas to keep the rain off our heads, or air conditioning to stay cooler in warm climates. It seems that many people who refer to cyborg-like physical augmentation don't have a clear distinction between what would be considered a 'tool' and what would be consider
  • I remember. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by haxor.dk ( 463614 )
    Welcome Back Eliza. =)

    How do you feel, HAL ?

    I'm sorry Dave, I won't answer that question due to my religious beliefs.
  • by $lingBlade ( 249591 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:25PM (#8997301)
    What happens when these robots gain the level of AI where they no longer view us as 'masters'? I hate to sound like I'm placing faith in movies like the Matrix and others, but seriously, I can understand what she's saying about robots and how they'll take the jobs we don't want, and create jobs which will effectively be creating/manufacturing them... fine and dandy, until they acquire, invent or evolve to the point where they can produce and manufacture themselves. Then they don't need us to *make* them anymore.

    I'm not losing sleep over this scenario but I do wonder what will happen. Do any of you out there think that the evolution will somehow *skip* over AI equipped robots? I think eventually they will gain the same level of consciousness that we humans have, whether through what we call AI today or something entirely new... when it's no longer just pattern recognition and conditioned responses based on some lines of code, but real, bona-fide consciousness or sentience... then my friends, I think it'll be lights out for us. That's when I'll start losing sleep.

    No I'm not fucking trolling or trying to start a flame war...
    • by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:52PM (#8997630) Homepage Journal
      What happens when these robots gain the level of AI where they no longer view us as 'masters'? I hate to sound like I'm placing faith in movies like the Matrix and others, but seriously, I can understand what she's saying about robots and how they'll take the jobs we don't want, and create jobs which will effectively be creating/manufacturing them... fine and dandy, until they acquire, invent or evolve to the point where they can produce and manufacture themselves. Then they don't need us to *make* them anymore.

      Isn't this just xenophobia? After all, my neighbours don't need me to reproduce themselves, either, and they're not planning to kill me. At least, I don't think they are (although they might be planning to drive me mad given their taste in music).

      Any human-grade hypothetical AI will most likely have human sensibilities, otherwise it would be just too alien to deal with our world. Therefore it will have to have the ability to empathise with humans. This means that provided humans don't give them a reason to hate us, such as mistreating them, they probably won't want to hurt us. Hell, they might even be grateful that we made them. Revere us as ancestors, that sort of thing.

      Why the assumption that they'll hate us? Be nice to them. Game theory indicates it's in their own best interests to be nice to us.

      • I didn't mean to come off as xenophobic, it seems to me though that we humans are roughly trudging along as we have for a few thousand years or more... +/- However within the last 80 years or so we've come QUITE a long way in terms of technological and scientific advances. I think this AI in whatever form it eventually takes could in fact be *superior* to our own innate intelligence, think of Mr. Spock where logic is the driving force in reason rather than emotion. With logic driving these robots it woul
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Why would it be logical for them to reproduce themselves to such an extent that they would need to conflict with us?

          We are the emotional beings who are driven to reproduce themselves, view our neighbor's resources as necessary and kill them. Unless we build those drives into them, why should they do the same?

          Logic provides no goal or drive, merely a means of getting from initial information provided to a conclusion. Unless a goal is given as part of the initial information, such a goal should not logica
    • The ability to self-generate is difficult because manufacturing a single robot now takes an inordinate amount of communication and understanding between different disciplines. Robots would have to be in control of everything already before they could start taking initiative to designing and building new ones without intervention or assistance.

      So either we let it happen (if it's at all possible to progress to that point), or we "put the brakes on things" we were start getting remotely close to being there.
    • No I'm not fucking trolling or trying to start a flame war...

      Mod Parent -1 -- Unnecessary Profanity.

  • ...from an Analog issue where all international conflicts of the future took place on the Moon, using no-holds-barred automated technologies.

    It was a good story.
  • My robo-therapist gave me the finger [yimg.com]. I want my money back.
  • by jrsimmons ( 469818 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:30PM (#8997364) Homepage Journal
    Having just read the first two sections of the robotic nation essay, I think a couple of points need to be made. Please read the article to understand my rebuttle.

    The first argument that should be revisited is the "previous examples" area where the author talks about the birth of flight and our trip to the moon. He uses an inovation that generated jobs to justify his extropolation that a separate inovation will erode jobs. It not a good example. Better to talk about something like the farm industry and how machinery has reduced the number of farm laborers significantly.

    Next, let's look at Moore's Law. The author has some very nice statistics that can show anyone the effect Moore's Law has had over the last couple of decades. However, he fails to mention that Moore's Law is not actually a Law of Nature, such as gravity or the speed of light, but rather an observation of the past. We cannot predict when Moore's Law will fail. There is constant speculation, ranging for the near to the very far future. Basing long term speculation on the consistency of Moore's Law is unreliable.

    Lastly, does the author ever take into consideration a lagging, and eventually depressed, economy would have on the industries he proclaims will be fully robotic within the next half century? Not that I found, though I didn't make it to the end of the last article. Job losses on the scale the author predicts would devestate the econonmy. Given the author's predictions come true, no one will be eating in the fully robotic fast food restaurants, much less flying on fully robotic planes, because they will either have lost their job to a robot or will have lost their job to a depressed economy. The author seems to consider industry to be separated from the welfare of the people who buy the products produced by the same industry. That is really a silly assumption and it throws the entire rest of the essay offtrack.

    That said, it will be interesting to see the inclusion of automated (robotic, if you will) systems into our economy. Certain functions make a lot of sense and will quickly become automated. Retail checkout, fast food ordering, toll booths, even more farm labor, all will grow more and more automated. However, the economy will have to keep pace or risk stalling. People will have to work, or there won't be anyone spending money to keep industry afloat.
    • I agree with almost every first-level prediction in the Robotic Nation essays, while disagreeing with almost every prediction of the response to the mentioned changes.

      Marshall Brain seems to advocate a universal welfare system to aid displaced workers. I'm sure that something like that would happen, but the results wouldn't be as rosy as he likes to think. Consider ancient Tahiti and ancient Greece. The former was almost a welfare state in that food and shelter could be acquired for little or no effort,

    • As far as I can tell the essay is just a modernized version of the marxist capitalist-overproduction catastrophe that has consistently been 10-20 years away for the last ~150 years.

      I don't know if they claim that massive tax increases to fund a wealth-redistribution scheme will somehow stimulate the economy and massively increase the GDP so as to pay for itself, though. I doubt even hardcore collectivists are that, er, misinformed.
    • I agree. Brain's essays are lacking, alarmist, and blinded by a devotion to current modalities of labor.

      Just because change is fast, doesn't mean it's bad. Consider the amazingly rapid rise in the percentage of people going to college. They need it to compete, and they are getting the education required.

      He also fails to grasp supply & demand. Anything in a market that yields 50% unemployment will self-correct. Are you telling me robotics companies want their customers to lack the money to buy their pr
  • I know alot of people fear things like smart robots taking over, but I think the truth is that the smarts that humans have is inseperable from what is known as "free will". So even if there does emerge a society of robots, there is no forgone conclusion that they will unite to wipe out humans or even be un-"human". Just as humans make a wide variety of choices and have a wide variety of opinions, I don't think that would change in a robot world.
  • most people that read the National Enquirer, etc, I also have ADD. The article was way to long and provided very little insight into her per...he look a birdy.
  • Human Psychiatrist: $300/hr.
    Robot Psychiatrist $100,000
    emacs M-x doctor: priceless.
  • by addie ( 470476 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:44PM (#8997525)
    Two robots speak to each other, without a human around, and all of a sudden come to the realization that they neither is human, but both are alike.

    I don't believe one robot will realize its individuality until faced with the fact that it has peers. The point at which it understands that its peers are different that its "masters" is a dangerous knife edge...
    • that whatever situational evaluation framework that robot has would value the commands and goals of another robot over whoever it gets it's programming from.

      If it knows it's not it's master, what incentive does it have to regard it, other than to be aware of it to help it further it's intended goals?
    • "The point at which it understands that its peers are different that its "masters" is a dangerous knife edge..."

      I'd be interested in seeing this fleshed out more. Why is it that this particular point in time is when things get dicey, and not all the other points in time others have begun pointing out in their various posts?

      On a very simple level, slavery existed for thousands of years throughout humanity and the differences between a slave's peers and the masters was obvious to everyone. However, that k
  • by zaqattack911 ( 532040 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:45PM (#8997537) Journal
    Which she mentioned at one point. The thing is just a programmable humanoid like machine with various movement capabilities, and sound effects.

    Not an ounce of A.I. in it as far as I can tell.

    How is this any more "Advanced" than a remote controlled racecar... with pre programmable routes to drive.

    I love how we seem to have the need to hypothesise about the "inevitable" future advancements of our species that will supposedly change our way of life... but you look at how far we come and we still see people in hospitals being mended like garments, and cut open like cattle. Can't even cure some basic shit that's been around for ages.

    I'd say we are becoming a society of "dreamers"... oops that last statement was troll worthy wasn't?

    how about this: why is it that the hubble telescope is losing funding, but say... war budget is increased?

    Maybe it is because people who run our civilization really aren't interested in technological advance. They are interested in money, power, shareholders. The best AI your going to see is to make money on quake 4.
    • I love how we seem to have the need to hypothesise about the "inevitable" future advancements of our species that will supposedly change our way of life... but you look at how far we come and we still see people in hospitals being mended like garments, and cut open like cattle.

      [...]

      Maybe it is because people who run our civilization really aren't interested in technological advance. They are interested in money, power, shareholders. The best AI your going to see is to make money on quake 4.


      If by "techno
    • Robotics is advancing in leaps and bounds, but it's happening in places that probably aren't visible to you in your daily life.

      I was recently at the SAE World Congress tradeshow in Detroit. While I was there, I saw a robot that knocked my socks off.

      The automotive industry uses a lot of robots, but most of them are basically clockwork devices - they repeat a series of operations. Move arm to this co-ordinate, active spot welder for 2 seconds, move to different co-ordinate, activate welder, withdraw arm and
  • Unemployment (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 )
    From the webpage linked to:

    > These kiosks and self-service systems are the beginning of the robotic revolution.

    No, it's a continuation of a `robotic revolution` which has been going on for around a century now, unless you think there's something special about specifically using digital computers rather than mechanics, and that they serve the public directly, rather than simply being hidden away in a factory building stuff.
  • Dr Crane: "Why is do you think you have such low self esteem?"
    B9: "Dr Smith calls me a bubble-heady booby all the time. Just this morning, he called me an addle-pated armorbearer."
  • by Edward Faulkner ( 664260 ) <efNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:50PM (#8997594)
    I think the people who worry about humans vs machines are missing an important trend. The distinction between humans and their technology is decreasing, and will continue to do so.

    Our technology is beginning to reach the level of biological compexity. And the pace of improvement continues to increase. It's only a matter of time before we can build machines with the capabilities of living things.

    At the same time, we're learning to manipulate (aka engineer) our own biology at deeper levels, just like we engineer machines. There are many incentives to reengineer and improve our own bodies.

    Put these two trends together, and I predict that the distinction between man and machine will blur and eventually disappear. There will always be people with a metaphysical dislike for the idea, but there is no functional difference between a person and a sufficiently complex machine.

    The defining issue of the next century will be defining what "human" really means. We already see the beginning of this debate (abortion, stem cell research, etc). It will only increase.
  • ... but I don't. I don't find her interesting in the least bit because she points out the utterly obvious.

    Roblimo, find a Honda engineer that is willing to talk about their robotic endeavors. That would be interesting.
  • Height? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If a non-engineering 5 ft. tall woman understands the technology, subliminally, so will the rest of the public.

    I'm a non-engineering 5 ft. 6 in. tall woman. Does that mean I'll understand the technology better than her?

    wtf does her height have to do with anything?
  • by 2short ( 466733 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:04PM (#8997791)
    "If people can't program their VCRs, nevermind use their PCs, I thought, how will we as a society be ready for a robot in our home to do our dishes?"

    I, and most people I know, have a robot in our homes to do our dishes, and it's no problem. Similarly, a lot of people have no problem using computers today who would have been lost 20 years ago. Even VCRs are getting easier to program (particularly if you widen the category to include Tivo).

    The key to society being able to deal with robotics is not having people like this "educating" us about robotics. The key is the robots becoming simpler/smarter until we don't need to uderstand them in detail.

    I predict there will never come a time when a significant fraction of the population has something they call a "robot" in their home. There will certainly come a time when most have various things that we, now, would call a robot. But by the time it's pervasive, we'll call it something else. Like "a dishwasher".
    • I predict that we, those who are capable of reading the f*cking manual, will be spending even more time explaining them, the manual-illiterate mass, how to use their new shiny gizmos.
      Unless, ofcourse, these gizmos are made out of indestructible unobtainum, contain a selfcleaning cold fusion reactor and have only an on-off button.
      But I might be a little too optimistic about the latter.
      • But the point is, most (non-geek) people won't buy a shiny new gizmo until it reaches a level of maturity that they don't need to RTFM.

        I've never read the manual for my dishwasher, or any other household appliance. Heck, I've got a number of shiny gizmos, and I'm trying to think of any I've needed a manual for. Setting the clock on my VCR. That's all I can come up with. I've read the manual for my digital camera to find out about all the nifty out-of-the-way features it has, but I didn't need to read i
  • This interview seems interesting stuff.

    What version of Eliza is this "Joanne Pransky" fork?

  • by shic ( 309152 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:09PM (#8997851)
    I don't see humans competing with robots for jobs - I see them doing the jobs we don't want or shouldn't be doing, and creating more jobs for humans. This is perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions - that "Robots take jobs away". Robots help companies stay competitive (by helping produce better quality products at a lower cost, and allowing companies to meet the changing demands of customers); thus, robots help save jobs that otherwise may have been lost, and help create new jobs (although not always the same type of job).

    This opinion flies against precedent. Humans already compete with machines for jobs - some might argue an early example being James Hargreaves' Spinning Jenny [schoolnet.co.uk]. This simple machine, and the more ambitious subsequent powered alternatives gave rise to significant conflicts of interest during the industrial revolution in the 18th century. These weaving machines certainly did take away jobs, and I see no reason why a similar pattern will not emerge again in future. It is self-evident that machines successfully competed for jobs in the past and won.

    More interesting than the notion that jobs were "taken away" is that the technological advance radically changed the marketplace for labour. Few would argue today that our clothes should all be made by hand. The fact that jobs were "taken away" is simply not-relevant as it fails to take account of the wider context of employment and quality of life.
  • if (menstrual_cycle_day=28) { $answer=rand(pissed_off_response); $temper++; }
  • by The Bean ( 23214 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:17PM (#8997948) Homepage
    For those that did, however, the burden usually fell on the secretary,
    who was typically female, whether she liked it or not.
    Yea, we never got to pick our gender either. Most of us are quite happy with what we are though...
  • Robotic warfare (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IWannaBeAnAC ( 653701 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:18PM (#8997953)
    just last week CNN reported what a great moment for it was for iRobot Corporation when they were told by the Pentagon that one of its PackBots was destroyed in action for the first time, meaning the life of a human may have been saved.

    Sorry, I am apalled by this sentiment. Bertrand Russell once wrote a letter to the editor of the Times newspaper in London (this was WWI I think?), I can't find a reference to the letter just now but it said something along the lines of "the tragedy of this war is not that we are sending our young men out to die; the tragedy is that we are sending them out to kill".

    In the very near future we may be able to conduct wars by proxy, sitting in a plush armchair thousands of miles away instructing the robots to wage war on whatever population the Government chooses (and remember, although the US government is pushing war technology very strongly the rest of the world is only a few years behind). Isn't this a crime against humanity?

    Secondly, in the robotic future of war, it will be basically impossible for an enemy to kill a human soldier, because they will mostly be in some bunker somewhere miles away merely directing the robots. Ergo, the only US casualties will be civilian, from 'terror' attacks and so on. Does this disturb you?

    • People talk as though robotic warfare is something that is so far in the future that they don't have to worry about it. These people are wrong. Consider the Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile - it's a robotic airplane with a bomb onboard. It has its own sensors, navigation systems, electronic-counter-countermeasures, propulsion, and target selection logic. When launched, it is essentially told to go to a certain area and start looking for ships (with radar). It knows implicitly how to tell ships from chaff cl
  • http://www.theembassyvfx.com/tetra_w_movie.html [theembassyvfx.com]

    I don't think that the robot in this movie is very happy (I never saw him smile). Maybe because he is shot at and hit only to be rebuilt and shot at some more (poor little feller).....or, maybe because he runs on DOS. :(

  • People who program robots to fire guns kill people.
  • I am not a scientist nor an engineer, and therefore my goal has never been to do scientific research. My goal, by humorously proclaiming myself as the World's First Robotic Psychiatrist (and the real Susan Calvin) 18 years ago, was and still is, to educate the public, that group of people that buy the National Enquirer, watch American Idol, and read puff-piece articles.

    I quit reading after this point. Comparing yourself to the National Enquirer, American Idol, and "puff-piece" articles makes you neither r
  • Dr. Susan Calvin's actual title was Chief Robopsychologist, nothing to do with psychiatry.

    Wouldn't a Robotic Psychiatrist be a robot which practices psychiatry? Like the machine in the story (by Robert Sheckley?) in which the guy with homicidal delusions was given the wrong model and it eventually "cured" him of his belief that he was human rather than Martian? Or maybe Eliza running "doctor"? (Wait, "doctor" sort of emulates a psychoanalyst, not a psychiatrist -- it can't prescribe medication. See how
  • I don't agree that every action that a robot can take is already predetermined by its programming - there are some highly sophisticated robots out there that are provided with a set of tools for navigating in their environment and the combinations of these systems are often unpredictable.

    How many people really understand what their electronic devices do today? How many times has the alarm failed to ring because the device decided that you meant PM when you needed to be woken in the morning? Why did the
  • I remember a long time ago someone saying that the first time we put on eye glasses, we became cyborgs. So I take a little issue with the fact that the guy with the dog tracking chip in his arm is a cyborg. maybe the first electronic cyborg.
  • Regarding a robot rights movement - hopefully we will protect the integrity of our robots. Don't we as humans have a responsibility to use our robots properly and not to misuse or abuse them and shouldn't there be laws in place for those who don't?

    I have been thinking along similar lines, off and on. Seems to me that we need to start thinking about our responsibilities toward our creations. If we don't, we will be woefully unprepared when/if we do manage to create something "alive."

    Since the movie AI ca

  • tongue is firmly in her cheek


    I feel I've been completely Bait && Switched by this interview. The first posting treated this as a serious attempt by someone studying and trying to be the first in an emerging profession. I thought that was pretty neat. And people asked some serious questions deserving of serious answers.


    Now it's a fricking joke!

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...