David Hanson on "Robots That Show Emotion"
"Awaken intelligent robotic beings: Grant them sparks of true consciousness and creativity, and distribute these beings and their constituent technologies into the world." (From Hanson Robotics Web-site)
After coming across the above TEDTalk, I visited and explored David Hanson's site where more illuminating videos and explanations are available. I was immediately struck by the connections to Donald Norman's text, The Design of Future Things, in particular the chapter titled, The Psychology of People and Machines, pp. 35-55.
Here Norman uses descriptives such as, "Some machines are obstinate. Others are temperamental. Some are delicate, some rugged" (p.36). For Norman these have become valid, realistic characterizations. I am somewhat reluctant to agree with this assessment, although after viewing the above video and more, I was astonished at how human-like robotic machines are becoming! Indeed I had to suspend disbelief!
For David Hanson, through the innovation and use of Frubber™ combined with Character Engine cognition software, these "conversational character robots" purport to be sentient and empathetic to the observer and "Handled well, this combination truly comes to life, looks you warmly in the eye and inspires the sense of a soul in the machine." The Character Engine "enables robots to think, to feel, to perceive people and understand speech, hold natural conversations, and evolve into ever smarter beings" (http://hansonrobotics.wordpress.com/press-statement/)
However, Norman suggests,
"don't believe all the hype. Lots of hobbyists and small ventures would have you believe that robots are already here, capable of a wide variety of interactions.... most of these so-called applications are more imagination than reality, with unreliable mechanisms barely able to get through demonstrations." (Robots in the Home: What Might They Do?)
But Norman still urges us to "Think of what will happen in twenty years, when machines are a thousand more times more powerful than they are today---or in forty years, when they will be a million times more powerful." (The Design of Future Things, 2007, p. 39)
The more humanly realistic some machines are designed to appear, the more we seem to accept them as containing a human-ness, which is hard to define or describe. I am not sure to which scenario I would rather drift: Will I want to relate to machines that in no way emulate this human-ness, or would I have greater patience with a robotic 'being' that emulates although does not actually possess human-ness? I fear that I may be more willing to pass over control of certain aspects of my life if 'it' appeared outwardly human!
I must confess that I received a dog that rolls over and roars with laughter when activated by motion nearby: I love it! And what attracts me? The 'dog-ness' (read human-ness) of its laugh. Very real and very contagious. I join in with laughter every time, without anything amusing being apparent. Hm...I wonder if this is significant? As Norman points out, "The market for robots that entertain by being cute and cuddly is already well established." (Robots in the Home: What Might They do?)
On a connected, although more serious, note I wonder about the challenges of relating to these ever more complex machines whether they outwardly display a human-ness or not. We are gradually losing control over, and the ability to understand the workings of, the ever more seemingly 'clever' machines. Even when a product appears simple in appearance or not too challenging to operate, there are the underlying operational mysteries that we are not privy to. Hence, if there is a malfunction, or we want to alter some performance aspect, no simple process usually offers itself. I remember our first car, a Morris Minor, which had seen better days to be sure, often needing human encouragement to start beyond the usual turn of the ignition key. With paternal care my husband would jump out of the car, give a few turns of the Starting Handle-- a metal L-shaped rod that fit into the front of the car and simply connected to the engine--and voilå, the car would start...it never failed!
Today, if our latest car doesn't start---the car doesn't start! End of story! Beyond the frustration and inconvenience, sometimes it would be just be reassuring and somewhat comforting to know that we humans still hold the reins---or should I say, the steering wheel? This amusing advert for Allstate insurance underlines my point. Should vehicles or humans have the final say? Norman would probably say, "It depends."
After coming across the above TEDTalk, I visited and explored David Hanson's site where more illuminating videos and explanations are available. I was immediately struck by the connections to Donald Norman's text, The Design of Future Things, in particular the chapter titled, The Psychology of People and Machines, pp. 35-55.
Here Norman uses descriptives such as, "Some machines are obstinate. Others are temperamental. Some are delicate, some rugged" (p.36). For Norman these have become valid, realistic characterizations. I am somewhat reluctant to agree with this assessment, although after viewing the above video and more, I was astonished at how human-like robotic machines are becoming! Indeed I had to suspend disbelief!
For David Hanson, through the innovation and use of Frubber™ combined with Character Engine cognition software, these "conversational character robots" purport to be sentient and empathetic to the observer and "Handled well, this combination truly comes to life, looks you warmly in the eye and inspires the sense of a soul in the machine." The Character Engine "enables robots to think, to feel, to perceive people and understand speech, hold natural conversations, and evolve into ever smarter beings" (http://hansonrobotics.wordpress.com/press-statement/)
"This is the new era of art—art that awakens, befriends you, and that you must nurture as it grows up to live his or her own life. Artistry is as important as science in this quest."
(http://hansonrobotics.wordpress.com/press-statement/) However, Norman suggests,
"don't believe all the hype. Lots of hobbyists and small ventures would have you believe that robots are already here, capable of a wide variety of interactions.... most of these so-called applications are more imagination than reality, with unreliable mechanisms barely able to get through demonstrations." (Robots in the Home: What Might They Do?)
But Norman still urges us to "Think of what will happen in twenty years, when machines are a thousand more times more powerful than they are today---or in forty years, when they will be a million times more powerful." (The Design of Future Things, 2007, p. 39)
The more humanly realistic some machines are designed to appear, the more we seem to accept them as containing a human-ness, which is hard to define or describe. I am not sure to which scenario I would rather drift: Will I want to relate to machines that in no way emulate this human-ness, or would I have greater patience with a robotic 'being' that emulates although does not actually possess human-ness? I fear that I may be more willing to pass over control of certain aspects of my life if 'it' appeared outwardly human!
On a connected, although more serious, note I wonder about the challenges of relating to these ever more complex machines whether they outwardly display a human-ness or not. We are gradually losing control over, and the ability to understand the workings of, the ever more seemingly 'clever' machines. Even when a product appears simple in appearance or not too challenging to operate, there are the underlying operational mysteries that we are not privy to. Hence, if there is a malfunction, or we want to alter some performance aspect, no simple process usually offers itself. I remember our first car, a Morris Minor, which had seen better days to be sure, often needing human encouragement to start beyond the usual turn of the ignition key. With paternal care my husband would jump out of the car, give a few turns of the Starting Handle-- a metal L-shaped rod that fit into the front of the car and simply connected to the engine--and voilå, the car would start...it never failed!
Today, if our latest car doesn't start---the car doesn't start! End of story! Beyond the frustration and inconvenience, sometimes it would be just be reassuring and somewhat comforting to know that we humans still hold the reins---or should I say, the steering wheel? This amusing advert for Allstate insurance underlines my point. Should vehicles or humans have the final say? Norman would probably say, "It depends."
