Automaton

I finally had time to read Robin Marantz Henig's 8000-word piece on sociable robots in the New York Times Magazine. In the article, Henig, a contributing writer for the magazine, describes what scientists mean when they talk about "sociable robots," how such robots were designed to learn by interacting with their environments, and what are the issues involving robot learning, robot emotion, and robot boyfriends.

Henig does a great job explaining how the robots work, sometimes by "peeking behind the curtain" -- the robots are mostly MIT robots, old and new, including the metal torso Cog, the bushy-eyebrowed Kismet, the talkative head Mertz, the mop-topped Autom, the Gremlinlike Leonardo, the skyscraperish Domo, and the rubbery bulgy-eyed Rodney (OK, joking about this last one).

More interesting, perhaps, Henig describes instances in which the robots misbehave, or work in a somewhat disappointing way, and hey, that's how engineering happens in the real world, so it was neat to see that in the article as well (by the way, I loved the cover headline, which to me captures the essence of this emerging field: "It Understands (Sort Of)." An excerpt:

Today’s humanoids are not the sophisticated machines we might have expected by now, which just shows how complicated a task it was that scientists embarked on 15 years ago when they began working on a robot that could think. . . . They are, instead, hunks of metal tethered to computers, which need their human designers to get them going and to smooth the hiccups along the way.

But these early incarnations of sociable robots are also much more than meets the eye. Bill Gates has said that personal robotics today is at the stage that personal computers were in the mid-1970s. . . . In much the same way, the robots being built today, still unwieldy and temperamental even in the most capable hands, probably offer only hints of the way we might be using robots in another 30 years.

After reading the article, I wanted to see some of those machines in action, and it's just great you can find so many videos of them (the Times posted a bunch on the article's web page). But as a writer myself I also wanted to know more about Henig's experience writing the article. Having just returned from vacation, she was kind enough to promptly answer my questions -- thanks, Robin! (Follow the link below to read the Q&A.)

My company is pretty firmly entrenched in the defense industry. In fact, many robotics companies are -- defense contracting is a good way to pay the bills while growing other areas of research and development. But while robots are really amazing things to work on in and of themselves, the technology is slowly advancing toward greater capability and autonomy -- and for those of us working defense contracts, this has some uncomfortable implications.

Bluefin's AUVs aren't weapons (when people I ask, I remind them that there is already a word for an autonomous submarine that explodes -- "torpedo") and most other companies aren't actively weaponizing their robots. To date the bulk of military robotics has been oriented toward surveillance, security, and disposal of mines and IEDs -- situations where most everyone can agree that it's a good idea to keep a human out of the way.

But things are changing. Even if companies aren't putting on guns, they're at least putting on gun mounts. Early last month Wired reported on the newly weaponized ground robots. Other companies are building in weapons payload options: recently a Reaper aerial drone made history as the first Army unmanned military vehicle to kill (thank you for the correction, Kevin); its remote operators used it to locate two men suspected of placing an IED and dropped its "precision munitions" on the targets.

What do the users of these robots think? At the OceanTech Expo in early September, I attended an AUV panel; one of the panelists, Bill Schopfel, is the event manager at the Office of Naval Research. He spoke specifically to the role of robotic vehicles in underwater mine countermeasures -- he says for the forseeable future, the decision to engage and neutralize mines will not be autonomous; even if the vehicle is capable of performing neutralization measures, there will still be a person in the loop who is making the decision to engage. With respect to autonomous vehicles that operate without a human's control, a DoD proposal from last year discusses the idea that humans target humans and machines target machines -- though that proposal has not yet passed legal review.

The Army's Future Combat Systems initiative is becoming a reality, but it really demands thought and careful consideration of the ways we're deciding to employ technology -- though our military needs demand immediate technological solutions. How can we make sure ethics and technology develop at the same pace?

Over at our neighbor blog Risk Factor, Bob Charette has an interesting post on robots and ethics and the views of Ronald Arkin [photo, right], of Georgia Tech, and Noel Sharkey, of the University of Sheffield:

Government Computer News had a nice little story on the ethics of robot warriors a short time ago. It talked about the work of Georgia Institute of Technology’s Mobile Robot Laboratory professor Ronald Arkin and his attempts to define algorithms to define ethical behavior in machines that can follow norms like the Geneva Convention.

[...]

In an AFP news story, Dr. Arkin is quoted last month as saying, "Robotics systems may have the potential to out-perform humans from a perspective of the laws of war and the rules of engagement," since with robots "there are no emotions that can cloud judgment, such as anger."

Arkin's work has direct relevance to another robot story in this week's London Telegraph and the aforementioned AFP story about University of Sheffield's Department of Computer Science professor Noel Sharkey's belief that the major powers are "sleepwalking" into an international robot arms race, and predicted "that it is only a matter of time before robots become a standard terrorist weapon, replacing suicide bombers."

As my blog colleague Mikell noted before, How can we make sure ethics and technology develop at the same pace?

Photo of Ronald Arkin by Gary Meek