Robotics

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The idea of robots taking our jobs is not radically new.
But artificial intelligence (AI) is now completely reorganising the global economy. Some estimates of productivity-driven economic growth conclude that AI will contribute approximately <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/the-global-economy-will-be-14-bigger-in-2030-because-of-ai/" target="_blank">$US16 trillion to the global economy by 2030</a>.
Unfortunately – compared to the European Union, Japan, United States and United Kingdom – Australia has been relatively late in turning to address the challenges of AI, and creating the right policies to deal with its many implications (good and bad).
For our economy to thrive, what we need now is the right mix of governance, regulation, civil society participation, industry support and business compliance – as well as the development and deepening of digital literacy throughout Australian communities.
So how can we make that happen? A <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/artificial-intelligence/" target="_blank">report launched today</a> is designed to help.
<h2>Euphoria versus cataclysm</h2>
New developments in AI are very different from previous forms of automation. Technologies today are mobile, situationally aware, adaptive and in real-time communication with other intelligent machines.
Machine learning has been especially important in speeding up the spread and efficacy of AI. Machine learning encompasses smart algorithms that improve their performance unsupervised, often through sorting and classifying big data sets. Applications include weather prediction, medical diagnostics and personalised marketing (such as ads through Facebook).
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, said the AI revolution is “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/598250/shaping-the-future-of-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab-founder-and-executive-chairman-world-economic-forum-with-nicholas-davis/9781984822611/" target="_blank">unlike anything humankind has experienced before</a>”.
The consequences of our increasingly automated global world involve a shattering of political orthodoxies. We have to be much more agile and prepared to change fast. Our policies and approaches should allow us to cope with the unexpected, unanticipated shifts coming from the digital revolution.
I have been pondering these massive global changes over the last nine months while working as a member of the Australian Council of Learned Academies Expert Working Group on Artificial Intelligence in Australia. The <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/artificial-intelligence/" target="_blank">ACOLA Report</a>, launched today in Canberra, considers the full spectrum of issues arising from AI.
One big challenge we faced was to distinguish between euphoric and cataclysmic visions of AI. Another big task was to chart the public policy “sea change” arising from AI. Neither challenge was easy to confront.
<h2>Leveraging AI for Australia</h2>
The ACOLA Report lays out how we can improve Australia’s economic, societal and environmental well-being while taking into account the ethical, legal and social issues linked with AI.
It highlights the importance of finding a balance between innovation and risk, and how we can weigh up the promise of unprecedented technological transformation of manufacturing, infrastructure and the economy on the one side, and the growing risks of technological unemployment and autonomous weapons (“<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-so-hard-to-reach-an-international-agreement-on-killer-robots-102637" target="_blank">killer robots</a>”) on the other.
The plan outlined in the report focuses on education, business operations, governance and regulation, social implications, research and skills.
In terms of education, for example, increased automation of routine tasks means people will be freed up in the workplace. This means there’s likely to be an increased demand for employees with strong interpersonal skills and critical thinking.
The social sciences, humanities and creative arts have a big role to play in promoting ethical AI. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are vital in advancing the next generation of AI researchers.
AI will demand new skills and capabilities, and adaptability, in our workforce. Micro-credentialing (a form of education in which “mini-degrees” are achieved in specific subject areas) is likely to become useful for certifying basic education and digital literacy in AI.
Schools, the vocational education and training (VET) sector and universities should encourage broad-based training and lifelong learning in AI development.
The ACOLA report also addresses the need for new policy relating to data harvesting and invasions of privacy (for example, involving tech giants Facebook and Google) and geopolitical concerns, especially where the spread of fake news has been powerfully weaponised by Russia and other countries.
Everything to play for
Getting the balance right between opportunity and risk arising from the AI revolution will be essential to the future fabric of Australia. However the ACOLA report is only the start of the process of public engagement – much more needs to be done.
What is now urgently needed, I think, is a national summit on AI – involving politicians, policymakers, business leaders and industry representatives and people from the broader community. This can help us consider how Australia might best fashion a common framework for the ethical development of AI, both in our country and internationally.
Australia has come to this global policy debate somewhat later than some, but in terms of the AI revolution there’s everything still to play for.
The arguments developed in this article are the author’s own views, and not representative of ACOLA or the panel that contributed to the horizon scanning report on AI.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113744/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anthony-elliott-92578" target="_blank">Anthony Elliott</a>, Dean of External Engagement and Executive Director of the Hawke EU Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180" target="_blank">University of South Australia</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-make-ai-work-for-our-economy-and-for-our-people-113744" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

How Australia can make AI work for our economy, and for our people

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
What is it about AI that unnerves us? 
Here’s a question: do you consider yourself to be a trusting person? Or let me put it another way: would you put your life in the hands of a total stranger?
You do. Hundreds if not thousands of times, every day. Take me, for example.
This morning I woke up. I switched on the light – trusting that I wouldn’t be electrocuted by a faulty lamp, or cord, or socket. I prepared my breakfast – trusting that I wouldn’t be poisoned by salmonella in my factory-processed muesli.
I walked from my hotel across Elizabeth Street in peak hour. Hundreds of cars bearing down on me. Sydney drivers. And nothing to protect me except a red light and a white line.
All of these decisions make sense to us, because we know that we live in a society where human behaviour is governed by conventions and rules.
That capacity to trust in unknown humans, not because of a belief in our innate goodness, but because of the systems that we humans have made, is the true genius of our species.
We can collaborate, and innovate – because we can trust.
Now let’s replace a fellow human in these day to day interactions with artificial intelligence: AI. What would it take for you to put the same level of trust in AI as you would extend to a human?
To chat with your child? To drive your taxi? To read your brain scan? To scan your face at a concert, at work, or in a supermarket?
What’s different about AI
What is it about AI that unnerves us? I suspect it’s a combination of two things.
First, we lack information. The knowledge seems concentrated in a small community of experts. Perhaps 22,000 worldwide are qualified to the level of a PhD in AI. People with rare skills in high demand come at an eye-watering price. That makes them very hard to keep in universities and public agencies.
It’s not unknown for technology developers to buy up IT faculties. And whether these experts work in industry, or the public sector, or universities, there are often commercial or security reasons to keep quiet about their activities.
Consider Google. In footage beamed around the world last week, Google debuted an AI that makes phone calls on your behalf, in a human voice, and chats with the human who answers.
Now for 68 years the world has been waiting for an AI that could fool us into thinking it was human. We call it the Turing Test, named after the scientist who proposed it in 1950, Alan Turing.
He began with the question “can machines think?” Since we can’t agree on a single test for “thinking”, he replaced it with a thought experiment he called the “imitation game”: can we build a machine that would pass as human, to humans, if we couldn’t see it, and judged it by its words?
Watching Google’s AI book a haircut and a table at a restaurant, some observers say the Turing test was met. And as a result, your world has changed - because every phone call you make or receive now carries a niggling doubt. That could be a machine.
Hand in hand with our lack of knowledge is our lack of foreknowledge. We give up our data today without knowing what others might be able to do with it tomorrow.
When you uploaded your photos to Facebook, did you expect that Facebook would be able to scan them, name all the people, identify your tastes in food and clothing and hobbies, diagnose certain genetic disorders, like Down Syndrome, decide on your personality type, and package all that information for advertisers?
Probably not. But we can’t unpick our choices.
Responses to artificial intelligence
One response to these questions would be to conclude that the only safe way forward is to ban AI. That would be a tragic mistake for Australia.
It wouldn’t halt progress, because I find it difficult to believe that China and France and the United Kingdom and the United States and every other nation that has staked its future on AI would now step back from the race. Why would they, when they see that for all the risks, the future has infinite promise?
Healthcare, available to all, tailored precisely to the individual. Your personal chauffer, a privilege previously only available to the super wealthy. An AI assistant for each of us, to manage our appointments and remind us of the things we would doubtless forget.
We want those benefits in Australia.
A ban would simply discourage research and development in the places where we most want to see it: reputable institutions, like CSIRO’s Data61, and our universities. Of course, the fastest way to end up with a total ban is to allow a free-for-all. A free-for-all that allows unscrupulous and unthinking and just plain incompetent people to do their worst.
No: we want rules that allow us to trust AI, just as they allow us to trust our fellow humans. So my question again: what would it take for you to extend your trust?
Think back to the web of rules that protect us every time we walk across a pedestrian crossing.
We could think of that web of rules as a spectrum. On the extreme left, we have light touch rules: manners and customs. As we move to the right, the rules become more binding.
There are industry codes, standards and regulations. Further along, the criminal law. To the extreme right, international prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons.
Different human behaviours are regulated at different points, depending on their capacity for harm.
The challenge is to develop a similar spectrum for AI, not expecting a single solution, but instead an evolving web.
At the left-hand, light-touch end, consumer expectations for things like digital assistants.
At the other extreme, global governance for weapons of war: military devices that can select and kill their targets without a human in the loop.
I’ll leave that particular discussion on weapons to another occasion.
Instead, I’ve been thinking about the role that Australia could play at the left-hand end of the spectrum, where we interact with technology providers as everyday consumers.
We would expect a government department to vet the provider of a service that, for example, replaced social workers with algorithms that predict the likelihood that a particular child will be violent.
But how many consumers are going to have the knowledge or the time to individually vet every AI they encounter?
When was the last time you read the terms and conditions before clicking “Accept”? What we need is an agreed standard and a clear signal, so we individual consumers don’t need expert knowledge to make ethical choices, and companies that want your business know from the outset how they are expected to behave.
So my proposal is a trustmark. Its working title is “the Turing Certificate”, in honour of Alan Turing.
Companies can apply for Turing certification, and if they meet the standards and comply with the auditing requirements, they can display the Turing Stamp.
Then consumers and governments could use their purchasing power to reward and encourage ethical AI, just as they currently look for the “Fairtrade” logo on coffee.
Why a voluntary certificate would work
The first response to a certification scheme is always “but that costs money”. I understand that response, because I thought that way myself when I was building my company Axon Instruments in San Francisco.
I was making a device that was designed to be surgically inserted into people’s brains. I expected to face a long and tortuous process to meet the exacting international ISO 9000 standards for good manufacturing practice. What I discovered was that the standards were the scaffold I needed to build a competitive company.
They baked in the expectation of quality from the start.
True quality is achieved by design, not by test and reject.
We maintained these exacting design and business practices for our non-medical products, too, because they made us a better company and gave us a commercial edge. Done right, the costs of securing certification should then be covered by increased sales, from customers prepared to pay a premium.
Would the Turing Stamp be granted to organisations, or products? Both.
It is the model that has long been accepted in the manufacturing sector. And when you trade with an AI developer you expect to have an ongoing relationship. If you buy a washing machine, it will still be the same washing machine in five years’ time. If you download an app, it may well be radically different in five weeks.
I think you would want the company that stores your data and develops your upgrades to be ethical through and through.
Of course, in the manufacturing sector, the standards are both mandatory and enforceable: manufacturing is a highly visible process.
For AI, mandatory certification would be cumbersome. The voluntary Turing system would allow responsible companies to opt in.
A voluntary system does not mean self-certification. It means that the companies would voluntarily submit themselves to an external process. Smart companies, trading on quality, would welcome an auditing system that weeded out poor behaviour. And consumers would rightly insist on a stamp with proven integrity.
Is this a global measure that Australia could help to foster?
Surely, we have more to gain than most. Where we compete in the global market, we compete on quality.
A system that verifies quality and prioritises ethics will reward Australia. Last week’s federal budget made what I have described as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-2018-when-scientists-make-their-case-effectively-politicians-listen-96124">“promising first instalment”</a>. A$30 million has been allocated for AI, including an AI roadmap and a national AI ethics framework.
I hope we can use our influence to shape a responsible direction for the world.
This article is an extract of a keynote speech Alan Finkel delivered to a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) event in Sydney, on artificial intelligence.
Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief Scientist<a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/office-of-the-chief-scientist-1049" target="_blank"></a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/finkel-overcoming-our-mistrust-of-robots-in-our-homes-and-workplaces-96787" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Overcoming our mistrust of robots in our homes and workplaces: Alan Finkel

<html><body>
While technology continues to revolutionise supply chains outside the warehouse, it also has a huge potential to impact what happens inside the warehouse. According to Savills, we are already beginning to see robotics and connectivity changing processes and increasing efficiencies.
The International Federation of Robotics has stated that the supply of industrial robots will reach 400,000 units by the year end of 2018 and continue to grow by 15% per year. This means that the global supply of robots is increasing exponentially.
While the use of robotics in manufacturing processes is common across industry, mainstream use within the warehouse has not yet proliferated in Australia. Online retail giant Amazon has been identified as an operative leading the charge in this space, initially purchasing Kiva robotics in 2012. It has been estimated that there are now over 80,000 robots being used today in approximately 120 Amazon Fulfilment Centres across America.
Research from the DHL Innovation Centre foresees robots working in all aspects of the supply chain from national distribution facilities to mail sortation centres and local last mile delivery hubs. Key to their deployment will be decreases in investment as production efficiencies increase across the world.
The roll out of such technologies in Australia has been slow however Queensland can attest to a recent key example which is leading the way. 
In 2017, Pan Asian logistics specialist, LOGOS, developed an 18,762sq m purpose built high bay warehouse distribution and office facility for Asahi Beverages which included the provision of circa 9,000sq m of state of the art automated warehousing systems.
 <img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/5/8/robot2.jpg" alt="">
LOGOS’ Purpose Built Distribution Centre for Asahi Beverages
Asahi Beverages, one of the leading beverage companies in Australia and New Zealand, selected the LOGOS Heathwood Logistics Estate in Brisbane to locate their Queensland Warehousing Operations. The Estate is positioned directly along the Logan Motorway, being the main arterial and distribution precinct for Queensland, linking up with the Ipswich Motorway, Centenary Highway and the Gateway Motorway. 
The high bay area of the Asahi facility utilises an Automated Storage &amp; Retrieval System (ASRS) and Storage and Retrieval Machines (SRMs) operating within racking aisles to carry out, put-away and retrieval tasks of pallets from the racking. The low bay area facilitates forklift movements, selective pallet racking, case picking, drive-in pallet racking, pallet conveyors and automated stretch wrappers.
LOGOS Joint Managing Director, Trent Iliffe said that they were pleased to partner with Asahi Beverages to deliver the state-of-the-art facility. 
“We’re seeing a larger number of our customers across Australia and Asia moving to automated warehouse solutions and the Asahi Beverages facility has set the benchmark for the quality of facilities we can deliver,” he said.
Savills State Director of <a href="http://www.savills.com.au/services-and-sectors/industrial.aspx" target="_blank">Industrial and Business Services</a> for Queensland, Callum Stenson, said that with the beginning of these technology advancements hitting the market, 10 year old warehousing could see much higher redundancy in a shorter period of time.
Increased racking automation will create a need for taller warehouse units as occupiers utilise the volumetric cube more efficiently.
“With these new facilities now exceeding heights of 36 meters, buildings which were constructed in the early part of this century that are topping out at 7 meters will struggle to adapt to the supply chain requirements of modern warehousing,” Mr Stenson said.
All of this is made possible by the increased use of wireless data making the connectivity of a range of new devices possible. We will soon refer to this notion as The Internet of Things, which will see 50 billion previously idle devices all connected to the internet by 2020.
The extra connectivity to Internet of Things is likely to increase order picking and inventory density in a warehouse whilst reducing utility costs such as lighting and air-conditioning. 
“Warehouses will need to evolve to allow for data and artificial intelligence to integrate with stock supply demands,” Mr Stenson said.
The impacts of technology combined with changing consumer habits will in turn create a need to accelerate the roll out of robotic warehousing in Australia. Ever changing consumer habits and differing business models coupled with legacy supply chains, technology and penetration of online retail means that there is no ‘one size fits all’ model.  
The evolution of warehousing will continue to be based around design and location requirements, with innovation being the major driving force behind business productivity and profitability.
Savills is a leading global real estate service provider offering the full spectrum of services from strategic advice to managing assets and projects and transacting deals. Callum Stenson is Savills State Director - QLD, <a href="http://www.savills.com.au/services-and-sectors/industrial.aspx" target="_blank">Industrial &amp; Business Services</a>. To learn more about Savills, visit <a href="http://www.savills.com.au" target="_blank">savills.com.au</a>.
 
 
 
 
 
</body></html>

Robot warehousing, the warehouse evolution: Savills

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
With the widespread adoption of in-house apps, instant messaging and even robots, hotels are on the cusp of a chatbot revolution.
Chatbots are already working hard in the hospitality industry, from taking fast food orders to helping travellers plan their trips. While conversational AI is very much in its infancy in the hotel sector, it certainly has plenty of potential, says Nigel Symonds, hospitality consultant at Avenue9. So how could chatbots change the hotel industry?
1. A new reservation channel
Earlier in August, Icelandair launched a booking bot, leveraging Facebook’s new chatbot development toolkit. Modelled on a text conversation with a real travel agent, the bot not only offers and takes reservations for flights, it also suggests a layover in Reykjavik.
Elsewhere in the travel industry, Expedia, again taking advantage of Facebook’s technology, launched a basic bot to help travellers book hotels. According to Symonds, in order to stave off fierce competition from online travel agencies (OTAs) and encourage direct booking, hotels should be looking to follow suit. “From our perspective, hotels definitely want to start integrating this technology,” he says. Indeed, Hyatt Hotels, which began using Facebook Messenger in late 2015, told Skift that “creating and deploying a Facebook Messenger bot is something that we will explore in the future.”
2. Enriching the pre-arrival experience
“Booking additional services is where the power is,” says Symonds. At the moment, hotels usually send out an automated email several days in advance of a guest’s arrival, suggesting amenities like spa treatments, airport transfers, and dinner reservations. “It would be great to have chatbots doing this,” he adds. “The benefit of a bot is that it can interact with the guest, asking questions such as whether it’s a special occasion, for instance, and responding with relevant offerings.”
3. On-resort interaction
London’s Edwardian Hotels were among the first to launch what they call a virtual assistant. Designed for those who prefer to engage with the brand digitally, the interface allows guests to order room service or get local recommendations from Edward the bot.
“It’s all about enhancing the guest experience,” says Symonds. “When integrated into the property management system (PMS), chatbots could be used to alert guests of real-time spa and restaurant availability, and offer last-minute rates.” Challenges include ensuring the offers are relevant to the recipient— including that your guest wants to get involved with the technology in the first place. “Certain generations will feel excluded if hotels abandon the more traditional routes of engagement,” Symonds adds.
4. Supplementing and supporting staff
With conversational AI able to answer straightforward questions, front-of-house staff are freed up to provide the kind of service only humans can. At the same time, “we’re seeing a shift in the desired skill set of hotel marketing and customer service personnel towards digital specialization” says Symonds. Chatbots aid guest interaction, but when a human needs to step in, that person needs to be both tech-savvy and able to embody the voice of the brand in a spontaneous and textually interactive way.
5. Leveraging data
A PMS-integrated bot that interacts with guests at all stages of the customer journey can gather valuable data, which can then be used by algorithms and hotel staff alike to provide personalized services. Unlike localized human interactions, entire chatbot conversations and outcomes can be stored and recalled for relevant future exchanges.
However, there’s a fine line between the impressive and the downright creepy. “If suggestions are too intuitive, you can risk alienating your guest,” says Symonds. As public perceptions catch up to the capabilities of technology, the solution, concludes Symonds, is a thorough and transparent permissions process.
This article by Natalie Holmes appeared in <a href="jllrealviews.com" target="_blank">jllrealviews.com</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Five ways chatbots could change the hotel industry

<html><body>
Property services firm JLL is starting a pilot project at its newest Sydney office, 50 Carrington Street, using a humanoid robot as receptionist.
The 57 cm high robot, named JiLL, will greet and support staff, visitors and couriers with a range of front of house tasks, including check-in for meetings, providing directions, contacting hosts and recording and reporting technology or building maintenance issues.
Phil Clark, JLL’s head of business transformation said JiLL will work as part of the WorkSmart Admin Team but will be the sole ‘front of house’ face.
"This allows JiLL’s human colleagues to support the business operations and to focus on more tactical activity," he said.
"JiLL works in conjunction with a tablet based visitor management system.
"She has in-built facial recognition software to enable her to respond differently to team members than to external visitors.
“This is really about automating those tasks such as greeting guests, providing directions, and assisting staff with administrative tasks in the workplace. JiLL’s duties will continue to grow over the coming months."
Chris Hunt, JLL’s Australasian Head of Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) said the pilot of robotics has started with the IFM team in Australia.
"The addition of JiLL to our Carrington Street office will enable our technology innovation team to monitor how clients and visitors respond to robots and the current levels of technology.   
“We are assessing the opportunities for artificial intelligence in the workplace. We see a future for robots in the workplace and organisations will need to understand what robots can offer for the future workplace and they will need a strategy to integrate humans and robots.  We are taking our first step in this journey by JiLL joining the JLL team.
“This is a trend that is developing fast and is something our clients will need to contend with.  We wanted to trial it first, starting small but thinking big and then be able to advise on how best to implement a robotics strategy into the management of building facilities. 
Introducing ‘JiLL’:
Type:   NAO
Model:  V5/H25
JiLL’s current duties:
Assisting visitors with appointments
Providing directions to washrooms
Supporting deliveries and collections
Assisting with forgotten access passes
Recording and reporting building related faults
Recording and reporting IT faults
Weight/height:  5.4kg / 574mm
Country of origin: France / Japan
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

JLL tasks robotic JiLL as receptionist at new Sydney office

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Not too long ago, robots were giant, caged things, mainly found in automotive manufacturing lines. Social robotics was a new field of research pursued by the best and brightest in university research labs.
In the past few years, however, it seems that social robots have finally come of age. All of a sudden, the market is teeming with products. Some are distinctly humanoid.
The rise of social robots
Softbank Robotics’ Nao, Pepper and Romeo all have a head and two arms. With their stylised designs, they deftly avoid the “uncanny valley” of human-machine interfaces (realistic enough to look human, but non-human enough to look spooky).
Others are more subdued in their anthropomorphism. Blue Frog Robotics’ Buddy sports an animated face on a screen, and scoots around on wheels. Jibo is yet more subtle in its ability to evoke humanity, with its stationary base and a head that can turn and nod.
Taiwanese electronics manufacturer ASUS recently joined the social robotics explosion with its Zenbo home robot. Tyrone Siu/Reuters
What is a social robot, and what makes it special?
In her seminal paper, “Towards sociable robots”, Professor Breazeal, inventor of Jibo, describes social robots as follows:
“(Social robots have) the ability to interact with people in an entertaining, engaging, or anthropomorphic manner.”
The most noticeable quality in the interactions between a person and a social robot is the emotion. This can be partially achieved via a speech-based interface. For example, Amazon is reputedly working on an enhancement to Alexa, the virtual assistant that lives inside the Echo device, to help it understand emotion. China’s Turing Robot goes a step further, and claims that its Turing Robot OS already understands emotion.
However, Dr. Breazeal’s research has demonstrated that adding non-verbal cues via physical gestures can have a profound effect in increasing people’s engagement, trust and confidence with the robot. In her 2010 TED talk, she discussed how people interacted with a robotic diet-and-exercise coach significantly longer than they did with the exact same coaching program running on a computer. A disembodied voice coming out of a mobile device, or a cylinder on the kitchen counter, leaves a lot of engagement on the table.
A solution, or a gimmick?
So, social robots can be great interfaces. However, an interface, even one that embraces emotion, is only useful as long as it connects people to a solution that solves a problem. And therein lies the challenge. What do these robots do? What problems do they solve?
And the reality is, no one has really made it past the cool factor, and arrived at a killer app that will take the mass market by storm.
Let’s look at the Softbank Robotics product line. Nao and Romeo are research platforms, designed for developers – not ordinary people. Pepper is the first consumer-facing solution that is designed to interact with end users out of the box. It has been deployed as a store attendant in a variety of retail settings. It is also being tested in Japanese homes as a companion robot.
But what is Pepper’s job description in the store? A store representative can greet customers, help them find items, and ring up purchases. Pepper can greet customers. Is it addressing a real need, or is it a gimmick?
Household robots are still a ways away
As Pepper has some emotional intelligence, one could make the case that it can be a great companion robot in the home. Let’s look at who needs companionship at home.
Children or elderly people come to mind. Children would gladly play with a robot. But a robot is no substitute for an adult. Any parent or caregiver of a young child knows this. And elderly people do need companionship. But what they crave is time with those they love, not companionship with a machine. Anybody who has cared for an elderly loved one knows this.
To their credit, Softbank Robotics’ website makes it clear that the robot companion is meant to complement, not replace, people. However, it is not clear to what extent today’s social robots can lessen the load for caregivers. The effectiveness of companion robots will improve in time, but there is work to do.
Last but not least, there is the holy grail of service robots in the home. What about a robot helper that can clean and cook? Alas, the technology in sensing, navigation and manipulation is so far behind the real challenges of a messy household that a truly useful robotic helper is years away. The best that today’s technology can offer is special purpose devices like the Roomba, or AI driven bar tending machines.
As a long time robot enthusiast, I can’t wait to see robots become ubiquitous in the home. Right now, the interface is more advanced than what the robots can do. Only when the back end meets the front end in sophistication will we really start to see truly useful robots in the home.
Elaine Chen<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elaine-chen-269390" rel="author"></a> is senior lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elaine-chen-269390" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Robotics

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Robotics

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News