We’ve all seen the terrifying headlines:

‘Rise of the Cybermen: The Terminator-style bionic ear that could give people “superman” hearing’
‘Terminator is nigh: Shape-shifting material that instantly switches from solid to liquid could lead to a new generation of robots’

And the rest.
Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of anxiety out there about the development of robots and artificial intelligence. Some of these fears are well-founded, of course, and some less so. We’ve been presented in the popular media so often – in films, video games and in the popular press –  with the image of robotic monsters and genocidal AI that it’s a wonder that public have not demanded that these dangerous toys be taken from scientists and forever locked away, their development forever prohibited for the good of all life on earth as we know it. (A similar public attack is underway regarding GMOs, for example; again, many of these are well-founded and some are not.)

However, increasingly, we are seeing another side to our imaginations of what robots can do, will do, to us, for us. No longer are they simply the laser-gun-wielding psychopaths, or the disembodied masterminds orchestrating the end of the human race. Robots and AI have also now become not only our carers (e.g. Robot and Frank), our lovers (Her) and even our children (A.I., Chappie).

And now, even more optimistically, they have become our saviours, the final great hope for humanity.

This is quite a turnaround, in terms of public relations.

Consider, for example, the tagline on the posters for Chappie, New Blomkamp’s take on the birth of sentient AI and the Singularity:

Humanity’s Last Hope Isn’t Human

Or consider Daniel H. Wilson’s 2011 novel, Robopocalypse: we are presented with a story about the rise of AI and robots and the destruction of humanity. But absolutely essential in humanity’s fight back are not only technologically-enhanced humans (armed with prosthetics and neural implants), but our new robot allies, good robots that help us battle the bad robots.

Or, going further back, consider more widely the Terminator series: in the first movie,, from 1984, Arnold Schwarzenegger is most certainly, unambiguously the Bad Guy, sent by a future AI to ensure that human resistance against machine-rule dies in its (or his) infancy. But already by the second film, , in 1991, Arnie is already the Good Guy protecting humanity from the next robot threat. And by the fourth in the series, in 2009, it is inevitable to avoid a certain degree of spoiling just by mentioning that the title is Terminator: Salvation. (And 2015’s Terminator: Genisys [sic] promises more of the same.)

Terminator

All of this might seem like a positive step in the right direction for those whose work is dedicated to building useful machines that help humanity, as the bad PR of snarling chrome skulls (and THAT picture) are replaced with more wholesome and realistic ideas of robots caring for the elderly and helping the sick and disabled – and on some levels this absolutely needs to be applauded – but there is also the worry that this new conception of robots is really just the other side of the very same coin: that the idealisation of robots and AI as humanity’s last great hope is not actually that much different from the demonisation of robots that preceded it.

Of course the idea that robots, and technology more generally, will be the humanity’s salvation is not a terribly new idea, and certainly has been around as long – or perhaps even longer – than the technological monsters that have come to dominate the popular media. Frankenstein’s monster, for example, was conceived as a warning of what could go wrong with humanity’s new technological prowess, despite our noblest intentions (and is itself a post-Enlightenment version of the classic Faust myth).

Android Superhero and Arch-villain – get ready to see more of The Vision and Ultron in the coming weeks.

And conceptions of the future since have always been manichean: utopian visions have always competed alongside dystopian versions, and though the nightmare images are more often (and popularly) the stuff of our fictions there have always been groups, from the Futurists to the posthumanists, that are ready to embrace the brave new world.

But uncritical optimism is often driven by the same sort of (often unconscious) anxieties and fears that give rise to the images of robotic monsters; likewise, misinformation and unrealistic expectations are the source of both unrealistically positive and negative beliefs.

So while the robo-enthusiast and AI-champion might welcome this cultural shift towards more positive social attitudes towards technology, it might not be all good news. We have to resist the vicissitudes of love and hate, demonisation and idealisation, and approach these questions – as always – with rational discussion and education.

]]> https://csnblog.specs-lab.com/2015/04/23/robot-saviours/feed/ 0 https://csnblog.specs-lab.com/2014/09/25/should-we-be-worried-about-the-technological-singularity/ https://csnblog.specs-lab.com/2014/09/25/should-we-be-worried-about-the-technological-singularity/#comments Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:21:00 +0000 http://csnblog.specs-lab.com/?p=5432 Continue reading →]]>

Technological Singularity is based on the prediction that the development of AI powerful enough to surpass human intelligence will change the world as we know it, leading either to a catastrophic end of the human kind or to its miraculous ascent.

In a recent article in the Guardian, Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England, Bristol, discusses the pitfalls of being overly pessimistic or optimistic about the Technological Singularity.

In his judgment, the best way to approach the issue is to be both a little cautious and at the same time a little optimistic. The key, of course, is remaining within reasonable limits. For instance, believe it or not, the risk of an Apocalyptic event induced by an almighty AI is unreasonable, because it requires a very improbable sequence of events to occur, one of them being the very invention of such AI, which, according to Winfield, may be as far in the future as the invention of faster than light travel.

So for those on the other side of the spectrum who think that the arrival of ultra-sophisticated AI is inevitable in our life-time and will solve all our problems, you should probably let it go. Yes, AI systems are all around us today: they can drive cars, recognize speech and do dozens of other useful things, often making humans look silly. However, human intelligence is not about reaching perfection in one task. It is about learning, generalizing what has been learned, creating new knowledge, understanding meaning and context, and of course, being self-aware. These goals are far beyond our current understanding of AI.

The singularity talk, as Alan Winfield notes, is not completely innocent. Being too pessimistic or optimistic about the Technological Singularity is to indulge in the fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. Focusing on some hypothetical apocalyptic scenario may not be the best of ideas, when we should be focused on combating more pressing and equally apocalyptic scenarios such as climate change.

You can read the full story by Alan Winfield in the Guardian HERE.

Read our previous post on singularity to learn about another take on the issue.

Credit: Real Humans

Although we may be decades away from building truly life-like humanoid robots, it is never too early to start questioning the legal and ethical implications of creating machines that are hard to tell apart from ourselves. In a brave leap of imagination, Real Humans, a popular Swedish TV show, written by Lars Lundstroem, deliberately blurs the line between humans and robots to explore what it means to be human.

The show, which could have been inspired by Hiroshi Ishiguro’s weirdest dream, is set in an alternative present-day Sweden, where extremely life-like androids with perfect looks called “hubots” are commercialised` to take care of all domestic and workplace drudgery.

With time, some hubots are programmed to acquire free will and become capable of entering into social and even intimate relations with humans. The story follows the emotional effects on two families in possession of hubots as well as the trials and tribulations of a group of hubots that decide to fight for their rights.

Real Humans has received a positive critical acclaim, even though it has been repeatedly characterised as creepy and disturbing, which in fact seems to be part of the writers’ intention. The premise of the show allows the creators to explore diverse philosophical questions as well as contemporary social issues.

Although the creators of the show claim that there was no science to rely on in the making of Real Humans, it is remarkable how the show’s vision resonates with some of the statements made recently by the mentioned Japanese roboticist Hiroshi Ishiguro during the presentation of his latest creations, two eerily human-looking robot newscasters Kodomoroid and Otonaroid. “Making androids is about exploring what it means to be human,” Ishiguro explained to reporters, “examining the question of what emotion is, what awareness is, what thinking is.”

Hiroshi Ishiguro’s latest androids Kodomoroid and Otenaroid during the demonstration last month

Just like the creators of Real Humans, robotics researchers, such as Ishiguro, warn of possible legal and ethical complications that may arise when humans and robots form stronger bonds, especially if the latter look and behave like us. Most of the present-day robots look deliberately artificial, but there is no reason why it has to remain so once the technology becomes available to make them look human.

Real Humans was released in 2012 and screened in at least 50 other countries with great success. Now the show is to be remade in English, with the premiere scheduled for 2015.

Credit: Tecnológico de Monterrey

From early stereoscopic images to 3D screens and holograms, people have always been fascinated by the possibility of enhancing our visual perception and bridging the gap between various two-dimensional representations of the world and its actual three-dimensionality.

Sadly, despite recent developments in 3D technology, the digital world is still under the domination of 2D. On top of it, the divide between 2D and 3D appears to be bigger than ever as digital platforms continue to gain importance in how we interact with the world. Incorporating the digital world of ideas into the fabric of reality remains the next logical step that could give the word vision a whole new dimension.

So, what technologies do we have today that could clear the way to this future?

The most consumer-available 3D technology today is, of course, 3D screens, which use various techniques to convey the illusion of depth perception and in most cases require you to wear those much-hated 3D glasses. And it goes without saying that this is part of the reason why 3D television did not really take off and why so many people secretly hate going to 3D theatres.

Even though autostereoscopic glasses-free 3D displays may have a second chance, they provide only a limited continuous field-of-view. The real game-changer, according to a recent article in Frontiers in Robotics and AI, would be the emergence of “high quality full field-of-view stereo-displays that do not require special glasses, where there is a seamless blend between reality and VR”.

Such displays would transform completely how we experience our digital content. So, next time you are having a video call, image that your screen is a window overlooking the room with your interlocutor. Wouldn’t that be great? 

But as long as these displays remain out of reach, there is something else to be excited about, and of course we are talking about holographic technology.

So, let’s get to the burning question: will we ever witness that Princess Leia hologram from Star Wars or the Holodeck from the Star Trek universe, where characters could experience and visualize their dreams in reality?

In recent years, we have seen all sort of holographic projections, most of them (like the one in the video below), however, being just sophisticated variations of Pepper’s ghost, an optical illusion, which has been around in some form for nearly four centuries. But is there any holographic technology besides this expensive visual trickery?

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, a company called Ostendo has spent almost ten years working on miniature projectors that can emit floating 3D images. The most exiting part is that the projectors are small enough to be embedded in future mobile devices.

So far we can only have a glimpse of what Ostendo’s projectors are capable of: the demo below shows just a few seconds of several Ostendo projectors beaming a 3D image of dice spinning in the air. Reportedly, the image was consistent regardless of the position of the viewer, which already sounds quite exciting.

It still remains unclear how Ostendo creates images in thin air. Other companies, by contrast, have been able to achieve similar effects only by using at least some kind of screen. For instance, Leia Display Systems, a company with a telling name, has recently demonstrated their holographic projection system, which works with an amazing but hardly practical water-vapour screen.

Naturally, the Kuratas is far from being practical and it is solely intended for entertainment. Some may even be put off by several of the Kuratas’ weapon features. While the guns embedded in the bot are merely toys, there is something disturbing about the ¨smile feature¨that enables the firing of harmless pellets when it detects the user’s smile.

Whether you think the Kuratas is cool, creepy, or just plain over the top, it’s important to remember that robots can be much more than extravagant toys. A recent report by the BBC features the Kuratus and discusses Japan’s fascination with robots. Most of the report focusses on work being carried out at the Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech), where robotocists have once again turned to nature for inspiration.

Profesor Shigeo Hirose started modeling some of their robots after snakes back in the 70′s. Their latest versions of these bots are being specially designed for use in disaster situations where they could help people trapped under buildings or enclosed in a tight spot.

Roboticists at Tokyo Tech are also working on an android that can swim, thanks to inspiration from dolphins. Micheal Phelps won’t have to step aside for this bot, it’s actually being developed to help professional athletes train. Check out the video HERE.

The video above features a special performance of a Shakespearean classic put on by Texas A&M University several years ago. The students and professors involved in the production thought this would be a great way to see how people respond to and interact with robots.

Presently, there are quite a number of studies which are investigating human-robot relationships. The recently completed European project SERA (Social Engagement with Robots and Agents ), aimed to advance the social acceptability of robots by collecting data on real-life, long-term relationships of subjects with robotic devices. A current European project, LIREC (Living with Robots and Artificial Companions), is also geared towards investigating social interaction with robots yet, some scientists suggest we look elsewhere than the lab for clues on how to improve our experiences with robots….

Literature, theatre and film portray a vast array of human relationships.  An Immortal literary icon like Shakespeare was an expert in unraveling the many aspects of human behaviour. Similarly, today’s roboticists have become very interested in picking apart the smaller components of human interactions in order to make our future experiences with robots as comfortable and natural as possible. From operas to poetry, artistic productions expose all sorts of human relationships in great detail but how can we extract useful information from such works and apply it to robotics?

Researchers from the Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Vienna, Austria suggest we do the following:

First, identify relevant scenes from various media. This could include anything from Greek tragoidia to modern day classics like metropolis and ET, however they suggest selected scenes be centred around characters which are engaged in a servant-master relationship. Those scenes would then be carefully analysed; identifying who does what, when and looking at the reactions that ensue. Next, they recommend different types of behaviours be categorized. This could result in categories of behaviours that are important to consider for robot demeanor but may otherwise be left out of conventional psychological typologies ( for example unobtrusiveness). Finally, this information should be integrated into existing personality models for humanoid robots.

For more information on this, you may want to have a look at the paper: Robots as Companions: What can we Learn from Servants and Companions in Literature, Theater, and Film? This paper is part of the proceedings from FET 11  (the European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition 2011) which also featured Robot Companions for Citizens as one of the 2011 Flagship Initiatives.

Protagonist of  Eidos-Montreal’s new video game Deus Ex: Human Revolution,  Adam Jensen is a crime fighting cyborg in the year 2027. Like real-life cyborgs, the video game character underwent radical surgeries to merge his body with mechanical parts after a devastating accident.

To celebrate the game’s August release, the company commissioned self-proclaimed ¨eyeborg¨Rob Spence to make a brief documentary to give us an idea of how far today’s bionic and prosthetic technologies are from being capable of creating cyborgs like Adam Jensen.

Spence lost his eye to a shot gun accident and now uses a bionic one that acts as a camera, transmitting video to a receiver. While Spence’s prosthetic eye includes no direct interface with his brain, the documentary introduces us to  Miikka Terho who suffered from genetic blindness until a 3×3 mm chip implanted under his eye allowed him to detect objects with his own eyes.

This documentary will give you a glimpse of these and other prosthetics as well as the amazing people who use them. It might also make you wonder how far off we may be from our own kind of human revolution as this type of technology continues to evolve as quickly as the rest.

Check out some videos of South Africa’s  impressive athlete Oscar Pistorius who was born without a fibula.

7000 USD can now buy you alternative forms of intimacy with a companion/sex robot developed by the American company TrueCompanion. Some people may find the idea of this revolting, perverted or just plain weird but with sexuality playing such a fundamental role in our lives
there are major factors driving this new market.

Naturally,  this new product can be used to fulfill a vast array of  fetish-filled fantasies but it can also fulfill  the more basic needs of people who can’t engage in safe sexual experiences due to an STD or physical disability.

However, Roxxxy wasn’t just developed for sexual uses. She can talk, listen and be programmed with one of 6 different personalities. Apparently, the company has plans to soon manufacture Rocky, the male version of Roxxxy.

On another note, is it somewhat sexist to make the first sex robot female?  In Andreas Huyssen’s  The Vamp and the Machine: Technology and Sexuality in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, an analysis of of the 1927 German science fiction film,  he states that ¨the film suggests a deeply problematic homology between woman and technology, a homology which results from male projection: Just as he invents and constructs technological artifacts which are to serve him and fulfll his desires, so woman, as she has been socially invented and constructed by man is expected to reflect man’s needs and to serve her master¨.

Click HERE to read more about Roxxxy

Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster (1931)

Our apprehension to artificial beings

The term robot was originally used in Karel Čapek’s 1921 play  RUR (Rossum’s Universal Robots). However, the concept of a being or machine  akin to today’s conception of a robot is something that goes back much further.

The notion of artificial beings is present throughout history in diverse methodologies.  In some they are portrayed as human servants, in others as divine creatures.  How are robots portrayed today?

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov introduced the three rules of robotics in his 1942 short story Runaround.

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.  2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Are these laws sufficient? And if so, do we as a society trust that they will be obeyed? In Colin McGin’s 1993 essay  Apes, Humans, Aliens, Vampires and Robots he attributes our angst on these issues to the fear that ¨artifacts (will) rise up and exert domination over us, bringing untold havoc and misery to our species. And here the contingency is merely the level of technological advancement of our machines. If we are not careful, the message goes, our technology will come back to oppress us¨. Does this common fear only pertain to the development of robots or does it apply to technology at large?

If you’re interested in how technology evolves and shapes us and our world, check out a book review by NewScientist’s Timothy Taylor on Kevin Kelly’s 2010 What Technology Wants or,  Kelly’s 1994 Out of Control which he has made fully available online.

You may also be interested in John Horgan’s 1996 The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age