I believe that cyborgs are the future...

...teach them well and let them lead the way. OK, perhaps we're not ready to sing inspirational songs about cyborgs yet, but they do occupy a special place in our imagination.

Let's define a few terms: robots are mechanism that can move automatically; androids are robots that have a humanoid form; and cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are beings that have biological and artificial parts.

In science fiction, cyborgs seem determined to subjugate humanity, make us more machine-like, or destroy us outright (see: Darth Vader, the Terminator, the Borg, and the most recent Cylons).

While menacing, I don't believe the fear we have of these characters springs from concerns about technology. Sci-fi cyborgs are stand-ins for humans who slavishly embrace a belief system or a cause, especially one that requires them to keep compassionate impulses in check. In other words, it's the absence of something distinctly human, not the addition of technology, that makes them villains.

Technology does play an interesting role in these stories, though. Mechanical enhancements give cyborgs physical and mental prowess that can't easily be matched by (puny) humans. Vipers, phasers, and blasters are useful (and cool), but the successful human heroes also need the right psychological (or spiritual) tools to be successful. Sure enough, many of popular cyborg stories conclude not with the physical defeat of cyborg enemies but a cyborg breaking from an oppressive system and sometimes sacrificing themselves for humans.

In reality, tech-enhanced people fill an aspirational space instead of an anxiety-filled one. Their augmentations address disabilities and compliment their humanity rather than threaten it. This is why I suspect we will take to (or physically take in) cybornetic technology as it becomes more advanced and accessible.

I wonder how long it will be before technology reaches a point in which robotic body parts become an attractive alternative to what we're born with. I'm not talking about replacements for injured or missing pieces. For better or worse, I can imagine a time when we begin to trade in healthy features for 'enhanced' versions. What do you think? Does this sound believable or too creepy to come true?

Related video:

From TED: Athlete, actor and activist Aimee Mullins talks about her prosthetic legs--she's got a dozen amazing pairs--and the super-powers they grant her: speed, beauty, an extra 6 inches of height... Quite simply, she redefines what the body can be.


From EYBORG: Take a one eyed film maker, an unemployed engineer, and a vision for something that’s never been done before and you have yourself the EyeBorg Project. Rob Spence and Kosta Grammatis are trying to make history by embedding a video camera and a transmitter in a prosthetic eye. That eye is going in Robs eye socket, and will record the world from a perspective that’s never been seen before.

A heart for the tin man

Generals and industrialists aren't the only ones thinking about the future of robots. More sensitive souls are considering the emotional impact these machines will have on us. For example, the Bristol Robotic Institute has developed the Heart Robot. This puppet-like bot mimics breathing and has a mechanism that feels like a beating heart.


"Does it make our world a much more emotionally sophisticated place when we're actually able to relate to our artifacts the way we relate to one another? Or does it make us value emotional and social relationships less because there are these artifacts that do it just as well and we can switch them off?" 
BRI's mission is to understand the science, engineering and social role of robotics and embedded intelligence. Their multidisciplinary approach aims to create autonomous devices capable of working independently, with each other, or with us in our human society.

Looking for a few good robots

I speculated about what a case for autonomous robots would look like in an earlier post, noting that having robots take the place of humans in life-threatening situations would be particularly persuasive. Since then I came across an account of the "Robot Rodeo" held at Fort Hood last year. Here's an excerpt.

Fresh off a tour in Iraq, Gen. Lynch challenged the attendees to show him some real robots. He told the stunned crowd there were no robots in Iraq--just things with remote control. He also said that he had lost 155 soldiers under his command in Iraq--122 soldiers--would not have died if the right robots had been there to help keep them out of harm's way. "I'm talking about a system that has a certain degree of autonomy," he said. [emphasis added]

Francis X. Govers III's article "U.S. Army Holds 'Robot Rodeo' at Fort Hood" appeared in the the January/February 2010 issue of Robot Magazine.

* * *Autonomous robots with the ability to drive vehicles or detect IEDs would be great assets in a war zone, but if autonomy is extended to armed machines, then we need to seriously consider everyone in which those machines will come in contact and the prospect of a deadly malfunction (example).

RoboResponsibility

Two excerpts from from Annalee Newitz's column for Metro Active (10/27/07).

"In South Africa, a widely used anti-aircraft cannon called the Oerlikon GDF-005 suffered from what many observers believe was a computer malfunction that killed nine soldiers and maimed 15 in a training exercise. Its computer-controlled sighting mechanism went haywire, and the gun automatically turned its barrel to face the trainees next to it, spraying bullets from magazines that it automatically reloaded until it was out of ammunition. Many compared the incident to science fiction fare like RoboCop or Terminator, where military bots turn on their masters."

"The tragedy in South Africa could have been avoided if the engineers who designed that cannon had simply refused to computerize its sight. With a big gun, computer error can be far worse than human error. Any decent engineer would have known that failure in computer systems is inevitable and come to the conclusion that weapons should not be programmed to function autonomously."

This story brings a few thoughts to mind.

1. Some have advocated for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Determining where the lines should be drawn would be a challenge, but we manage equally difficult tasks in others fields; why not the sciences?

2. The creation of autonomous machines with the ability to kill will be justified by the idea that they will save ___ lives [fill in your nation of choice]. The decision to send humans or robots into harm's way is no real decision at all (who wouldn't chose robots?), but this question obscures the more fundamental question: is this violence justified in the first place? When a government (or any group) can kill without risking lives from their side, how much more likely are they to turn to violence?

3. Our current organizational/legal structures insulate individuals at the top and bottom from blame during war. Soldiers simply follow orders and leaders claim not to be responsible for the actions of "bad apples". (It can take years to peel back the layers of responsibility when bad apples are charged with wrong doing.) Adding another layer--computer error--confuses the picture further. As more of these machines are deployed, clarity on who is responsible for what they do becomes increasingly important. If they are put in the field by the U.S. government, then we (U.S. readers) share responsibility for what these machines do.

Shall we play a game?

Play is a natural (some say necessary) part of human development, so it's not surprising that we enjoy putting robots through through play-like paces.

One example: the RoboGames features over 50 events, including combat, kung fu, basketball,  bartending and painting. Humans remotely control the robots during some events but not all of them.



The 8th annual games will be Fri-Sun, Apr 15-17, 2011, in the SF Bay Area.
I've been to this event before and it has an science fair-meets-Ultimate Fighting Championship atmosphere. A lot of young people attend and participate. Some of the RoboContestants are designed by highly skilled engineers and cost thousands of dollars. Others are built by young hobbyist for nearly nothing.

It's hard not to be charmed by kids getting their science on, but my geeky giddiness is tempered by an ominous feeling prompted by what some of these machines can do. The shooting gallery competition, for example, is more carnival game than a war game (organizers even make a point of stating contestants should be firing ping pong balls or nerf darts, rather than projectiles that can cause harm), but this rule gives me pause.

7. The control logic may run on any platform, as long as there is no human control of the logic after the match has been started, i.e. a laptop or microcontroller can control the aiming/shooting. [emphasis added]

Programming a device to identify and hit a target on its own is as worthy of a gold medal as person who can accurately perform that task, but who can forget this scene?




RoboCop (1987)

Papa's got a brand new mag

I like to read and I'm not adverse to new gadgets, but ebook readers (the Kindle, the Nook, and the like) have left me cold. Unconsciously, I must have been holding out for something similar to the demos below.


Sports Illustrated - Tablet Demo 1.5 from The Wonderfactory


Mag+ from Bonnier on Vimeo

Thanks to MP for the Bonnier link.

Update 1/4/10: NYT blogger, David Carr, looks ahead to what sort of tablet offerings Apple and Microsoft might have in the works.

Coconut Run

UPDATE: after disappearing from the web for a while, the Coconut Run is back.

ORIGINAL POST:
If you're a nerd (gamer) and a geek (maker), then Coconut Run might be an appealing way to unwind after some intense Battlestar Galactica chat.

Never mind this is a promo for Johnson Controls, a company that uses coconut fiber in the production of car seats. The Flash-based game will satisfy your urge to tinker without requiring an advanced degree or risking electrocution (again).

Your task: build a cart that can efficiently deliver coconuts to a shedder. The quicker you cover ground and the less product you spill the higher your rating will be.

Your supplies: bars, balls, blocks, shocks, and wheels. The construction process is simple--the objects connect when overlapping. Engineers might snicker at the lack of an engine, but you will have to consider factors such as the weight of your cart and the speed you travel, plus the pros and cons of features such as larger/bouncy tires. The game's 'tips' are helpful when you're getting started and can be turned off once you know the basics.

The course is short but extreme. You'll face several opportunities to turn over, get stuck, or loose cargo. The graphics look sharp and have an appropriate drawing board feel.

If you really like the game, you might be frustrated by the inability to save a design or copy and paste simple elements. (Creating two tires the same size, for instance, takes more concentration than I'd like.) Most vehicles can be recreated in a few minutes, though, and the price is right (free).

Note: you cart's performance could vary depending your computer. Very similar designs performed 10 to 15 seconds slower on a 5-year old PC when compared to a 6-month-old Mac, impacting the efficiency rating. My quickest model turned out to be a cross between a dune buggy and a sports bike. Have fun.

* * *

More from KungPowVoodo
Cuddle up to RoboFuture

 

The Internet, 50s-style

Here's a brief history of the internet--from fear-driven project of the scientific, military, and commercial communities to a platform for just about everything. It's a bit dry and acronym-laden, but the spiffy graphics and Hitchhiker's-Guide-to-the-Galaxy-like narration improve its watchability.

We often focus on government's short-comings (poor construction of levies or a failure to adequately oversee banks), so it's only fair to remember how some governmental geeks accomplished something cool and world-changing, whether they meant to or not.

RoboHighlights 2008

NewScientist has presented their year-end video round-up about robots. While some robo-efforts are inspired by nature or attempt to mimic natural behavior, many of these experiments actually fuse biological and technological systems.

Something to look for in stores next Christmas--the cyborg insect. Electronics controls their behaviour by interfacing with their nerves. The research is funded by the US defense research agency DARPA, which imagines future cyborg spies, according to NewScientists.



Plus, one from the archives. Robots inspired by animals.


* * *
Not cute (and/or creepy) enough for you? Check this earlier post.

Cuddle up to the RoboFuture

Ready to be assimilated?

Robots are now filling roles traditionally played by pets, friends, and family. Have you seen the reaction people have to objects like Sony’s Aibo (puppy), Ugobe’s Pleo (baby dinosaur), or Japan’s Paro (baby seal)? Young and old humans adore these things, or, perhaps more aptly put: they adore the way these creatures help them feel.


Two years ago, The Boston Globe ran this headline: Elders finding love in a household machine--seemingly sentient robots can fill void, researchers say. Full Story.

This isn’t an entirely modern phenomenon. After all, we’ve been placing sentimental value on non-living objects for a long time. Some objects are even considered sacred. In those cases, the object's emotional value springs from our own knowledge or memories.

Today, animated objects are bringing more to the table: the ability to be active participants in new experiences and to provoke our most cherished emotions. What does this tell us? Maybe our feelings are more important to us than what triggers those feelings. In other words, what’s meaningful isn’t an interaction with a living being; it’s that we feel delighted, surprised, needed, or loved.

Another way to look at this: an interaction with a robot is actually an exchange with another person or group of people--the creator(s) of the object. That interaction is simply facilitated by technology.

What’s next?
Some in this field are taking themselves a bit too seriously. One manufacturer, Ugobe, is making the case that their product is actually alive. The website for Pleo describes the range of emotions the robotic dinosaur displays: happy & curious, playful & lively, scared & surprised, and sad & vexed. From Ugobe's website:

Sad and VexedLeave a sociable Pleo alone too long or interrupt a game of tug-of-war and Pleo may become sad. How can you tell? That pleading call and forlorn look let you know that he's looking for a friendly pat or another chance to grab his favorite toy.

A forlorn look on its own seldom works for me these days, but with a some soft music and the right lighting Pleo may have more luck... But seriously, before dismissing this "it's alive!" talk as mere cheekiness, check out the tone of Ugobe’s “Three Laws” video and tell me if you think they're kidding.




P.S.
The crowd around the Pleo booth at a recent Maker Faire was so deep I could barely glimpse one. Well, at least Three Laws will be easier to remember than Ten Commandments, right?

* * *
The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology Kimura Clinic, and Brain Functions Laboratory, participated in joint research involving Paro, a therapeutic seal robot, and patients with Alzheimer's disease and other cognition disorders to discover the effect of the robot on improving brain function (2005). Read all about it.

Love and Sex with Robots by David Levy (non-fiction, 2007). Publisher's Weekly wrote: In this wide-ranging examination of the emotional and physical relations between humans and the inanimate objects of their desire, Levy first addresses the question of love with robots, and moves on to consider the mechanics of actually having sex with them.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick (fiction, 1968).

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov (fiction, 1950).

* * *
Robots Dancing Like People


People Dancing Like Robots

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. What does it mean when we program robots to act like us and then we act like them?