Celebrating 100 Years of Robots
1) What is your definition of a robot? (For instance, is a medical implant device a robot by itself? Or does it turn a human into a robot?)
A robot is a machine composed of software and hardware components that is functional in the automation of a manual task. Robots can be external or embedded devices, embodied in a physical asset, or implemented via software.
2) Are you excited by the transhumanism movement, or more cautious? Is it inevitable?
The prefix “trans-“ has a variety of meanings, including “into another state”. I think it is fallacious to say that humans are transforming into something other than the human form which they embody. Can a human be something other than “human”, in this context “beyond human”? The introduction of advanced technologies into or onto the human body does not instantly make an individual more intelligent. This is a misnomer. It may grant an individual access to more information in near real-time but definitely not more intelligence.
3) What do you think is currently the biggest ethical question/concern when it comes to emerging technologies? (Access? Privacy? Etc.?)
In the context of robots, the biggest ethical questions and concerns have to do with the promise of new technologies for the alleviation of social injustices. To that end the techno-myth that promises to end suffering (through robotic assistive tech) or to end pain (in the case of robotic implant devices that stimulate parts of the body and brain) or to offer solutions that are touted as a panacea (e.g. hire a robot to look after the autistic or the elderly for care). We begin to deeply ask questions related to human rights, questions related to responsibility and accountability and the ethic of care/ care ethics. Building up artificial intelligence as being something that it is not, is perilous to people in need, creating false hopes, when a vast majority of solutions are not approved by health insurance providers and are unaffordable. For the greater part AI/ML in the field of robotics is being applied to replace parts of worker tasks. We are introducing the notion of “autonomous systems”, semi or fully directed robots that act on their own volition using various feedback loop learning mechanisms in preference to human decision-making. The question is how far do we wish to go in allowing humans to remain “in the loop” or “on the loop”, without making them “redundant” and “out of the loop”. These require philosophical deliberations that are not straightforward and will take great stakeholder consultation toward future scenarios.
4) What do you foresee as the next big development on the horizon for technology/robotics/AI?
The next “big developments” in this space are definitely related to uberveillance. The purported ability to know the “who”, “where” and “what” condition, someone or something is in. It is to sense and respond based on situational contexts and simulating responses.
Conversational robots and avatars will proliferate. People will learn to let go of keyboards and other similar input devices and assistive technologies built for the disabled, such as brain computer interfaces, will be used for every day contexts. This will take a considerable leap in the design of advanced technologies, and the redesign of existing infrastructure as humans connected to networks via multiple technologies roam in the physical world.
Certainly, we have been saying for a very long time that the final frontier is the penetration of robotic technologies into the human body- that lowest common denominator node in a complex network. This can be as simple as implantable radiofrequency identification (RFID) transponders and tags to as complex as brain pacemakers for the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. Recently our chapter was published in an MIT Press book on this theme on “Last Mile Technologies” of this kind”.
5) Do you have a favorite robot from popular culture?
One cannot pass by the Arthur C Clarke classic: 2001: A Space Odyssey. HAL 9000 says: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." It is the “override” moment that we can learn from critically on the future perils of technologies with potential unintended consequences.
But I really do appreciate the following dialogue in Robots (2005) the animation:
Robots (2005)
Now, let's get down to the business of sucking every loose penny… out of Mr. and Mrs. Average-Knucklehead.
What's our big-ticket item? Upgrades, people. Upgrades.
That's how we make the dough.
Now, if we're telling robots that no matter what they're made of, they're “fine”… how can we expect them to feel crummy enough about themselves… to buy our upgrades and make themselves look better?
Therefore, I've come up with a new slogan. “Why be you when you can be new?”
I gotta tell you, I think it's brilliant…
Finally, I can’t go past Dr Who “dalek” character, the fictional extraterrestrial race of mutants who pronounce that “resistance is futile”. I don’t agree with the dalek; I think resistance is not futile. But it’s not even about resistance, it’s about co-designing solutions that citizenry want and need. Right now, we have full-sized robots like Knightscope’s K5 that resemble daleks. Is that what we envisage for the future? Is that how far our social imaginary stretches? To have safety bots like this roaming the streets ensuring order in civil society, potentially replacing police officers?
6) Is there anything else you’d like to add?
We have a great opportunity to introduce robots in key areas where humans are put at risk or in harm’s way.
We want to build brain computer interfaces that are complex, yet the majority of the world’s disabled persons who are missing a limb or are unnecessarily turning blind because of lack of resources do not have basic prosthetics or operative procedures toward prevention. The inequality question needs to be broached.
The question around trust also needs to be addressed. In our plight to alleviate the world of social injustices through robotics, the risk is in introducing a whole new set of problems because we have not adequately deliberated on the possibilities. We need to become more participative with communities.
Citation: Katina Michael with Emma Greguska, 21 January 2021, “Celebrating 100 Years of Robots”, CIDSE.