Where have all the workers gone?

The idea that robots will replace human labour hasbeen around since, technically, before there was even such a thing as robots. It is an intriguing history: We can trace our fears of being displaced by mechanised labour back to the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, as automated looms, powered by the magic of steam engines, meant less employment for skilled workers.

The very origin of the word ‘robot’ is a part of this history, and reflects these fears.

Čapek’s R.U.R.

Karel Čapek’s 1920 play, R.U.R., in which the word ‘robot’ first appears in its modern usage, portrays a factory where all of the workers are manufactured humanoid slaves  robota in Czech means ‘forced labour’) who [spoiler alert] eventually rise up and overthrow their creators. (A famous plot endlessly repeated, and mirrored, to an extent, in another important historical footnote, 1927’s iconic Metropolis, which is also a story about machines replacing human labour and its consequences.)

And now, in a new twist on this old theme – or, looked at from another way, the inevitable evolution of our anxieties – we are being told that whatever jobs are left to we humans will be filled by robotic recruiting consultants, who will analyse the data (i.e. human CVs) to find the best matches for those few jobs that, miraculously, robots are incapable of doing.

However, despite what might described as a bit of excitement at the possibility, there is really nothing new about this. Machines have long had a hand, so to speak, in helping to determine good matches between jobs and potential employees, just as versions of artificial intelligence are presently also finding us potential husbands and wives, new favourite songs and our next favourite books.

The idea that it will be ‘robots’ that will be recruiting human employees is clearly a hook, and not a particularly helpful one. (Especially when the news comes complete with illustrations of sometimes cute, sometimes overly stern – and always unnecessarily expensive – humanoid robots.)

So the news really is… not news. But there’s nothing new in that either, not when it comes to robots, or technology more generally. So, if there is nothing remarkable about machines helping to organise our lives, why is this question of ‘robot recruiters’ such a popular topic at the moment?

The workers and the machines in Metropolis (1927)

The answer, of course, lies in history, and our anxieties. We can trace the answer back to the Industrial Revolution and those dark Satanic mills. It is a new articulation of the old fear that we will be replaced by machines, that robots – versions of ourselves that do not tire, that do not require rests or holidays or maternity leave – will take our jobs. And more fundamentally here, the idea of robot recruiters goes one step further, unless, of course, you are actually in the recruiting industry itself, in which case the idea of robots doing recruitment, and doing it better than you, is already enough.

The idea that robots will find us jobs taps into the fact that we already know that robots are determining more and more about our lives – the amazon.com suggestions, the match.com pairings, the tripadvisor.com recommendations. But the robot recruiter also suggests that so many – perhaps for some people, too many – of our interactions are with machines that might be entirely rational and highly efficient, but somehow still less than human. And perhaps we’re not just thinking about our human-robot interactions, the voice inviting us to press 1 to pay a bill. There may also be a sense that many of our human-human interactions are similarly governed by a rigid inflexibility, that we are meeting other people that are somehow less than human.

And while normally we might embrace these interventions, and be grateful for the able assistance, we are – as ever – ambivalent about our relationship with technology. We are foreshadowing for ourselves potential downsides, negative impacts, and imagining that there are limits to how far we would like this trend to continue. These reservations are entirely legitimate and entirely rational, but in the absence of clear discussion or reasonable debate, they tend to be expressed in nightmare dystopian scenarios; we move from what is perhaps an unconscious suspicion that it may not be perfectly fine for a robot to help us find a fulfilling, well-paid job to imagining a world where a Skynet-styled AI alters our DNA while we are still in the test-tube and employs laser-gun wielding cyborgs to march human children from their Brave New Schools into their computer terminal prisons, where we will be connected to feeding tubes and implanted chips will cause us to explode should we ever try to leave.

But, as usual, such fantasies says much more about human beings than it does about the present or future abilities of robots and AI.

An ancient Arabic machine manuscript

What’s so great about machines?

It’s easy to see how some of today’s mechanical marvels like NASA’s Mars Spirit Rover or The HRP-4C, created by The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), inspire jaw-dropping wonder. Who made that? And how on earth does it do that? Are all natural questions that come to mind in the face of these modern works. However, there’s something about animated bits of wire and metal that have intrigued humans for centuries.

The ancient Greek mathematician and engineer, Hero of Alexandria  (c.AD 10–70), was rumoured to have built robots made locomotive through the use of air pressure. Accounts of the creation of a human-like automaton even go back as far as the 10th century BC, in the ancient Chinese Lie Zi text. And since their existence, people have prophesied about what their role could be, for both good and evil. Even Aristotle had an opinion on robots. After noting Homer’s reference to them in Lliad, he speculated  that robots might one day bring world-wide human equality, ultimately ending any want for slaves.

But our fascination with machines extends far beyond robots… from the measly coffee maker to the mighty space shuttle, we’ve included many in both our daily and monumental rituals. And speaking of a monumental ritual, you may want to check out what went  at the Burning Man festival this week. Artists there put on a terrific display when they ran 3.2 billion base pairs of encoded DNA run through pattern-generating software that was projected via a 60 W Laser. Talk about blurring the line between art and science.

And speaking of art, perhaps our fascination with machines has more to do with what we gain from the process of creation itself. The famed robotocist, Masahiro Mori, stated the following in the Japan Times after founding the first nation-wide robot-building competition in Japan back in the 80′s: “When we lose ourselves in an activity, we become creative, friendly and funny. Think of how children are when they are playing. They are completely absorbed in the game; their eyes shine and they are all smiles. They’re into the game, not themselves”.

Humans may not have the fastest or strongest bodies on earth but they are super multifunctional. Sure, we can’t jump as high as frogs, or swim as well as dolphins but we’re still able to achieve both forms of motion. The versatility of our physical ability has inspired us to create a world filled with tools and structures that would be impossible for many other animals to use – can you picture a cat using a door handle or a fish using stairs?

When industrial robots first came into the picture several decades ago, they were mainly used to accomplish very specific tasks and so their designs were purely functional. Today, there’s a big interest in developing robots for broader purposes including using them as research tools to further understand ourselves.

Some of today’s humanoid robots may seem a little bit creepy but sometimes it does make sense to give robots human-like bodies so they’re apt to operate amongst our human-centred designs. Many robots used for research need human bodies too, because researchers interested in studying human cognition know that while we need our brains to interact with our bodies, we also need our bodies in order to interact with the world.

So what does it really take to be a humanoid robot? Well, it should be able to move on two legs, use hands similarly to the way we do and perceive their own state and the state of the environment around them. They should also be able to communicate through modalities like speech or facial expression. Furthermore, they should be able to learn from and adapt to the environment around them.

This month, DARPA (the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) announced a new robotics challenge: While they maintain that it’s not imperative that the robot take on a humanoid form, the robot must be compatible with human operators, environments and tools. Robots in the running will compete with each other in a sort of obstacle course that will pose 8 real-world disaster site challenges. Among the tasks are: climbing a ladder, driving a utility vehicle and removing debris blocking an entry way. Proposals are due by May 31st, 2012.

The video above features Boston dynamic’s PETMAN who may already be capable of performing some of those tasks. While it seems like a bot that could get some serious work done, there are other humanoids that are a little easier on the eyes! Check out a video of Honda’s latest version of their Asimo robot below. If you want to check out something that’s a little bit different check out iiee spectrum’s compilation of robot babies and for more ideas on future robots, check out the European initiative: Robot Companions for Citizens.

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