What Future?

Posted by Carol at December 28th, 2007

In November, 2007, the University of of Delaware announced that two its professors “outfitted kid-size robots to provide mobility to children who are unable to fully explore the world on their own”.

Infants with Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism and other disorders can have mobility limitations that disconnect them from the ongoing exploration that their peers enjoy. The tiny robot is ringed with sensors that can determine the obstacle-free roaming space, and will either allow infants to bump obstacles or will take control from the infant and drive around the obstacle itself. The next prototype, UD2, will build on the current technology to provide additional control to a parent, teacher or other supervising adult.

“In this way, we can bind technology and human need together to remove barriers for movement in the environment,” [co-investigator] Agrawal said. They believe the training, robot design and new technology derived from the project will provide the foundation for the first generation of safe, smart vehicles for infants born with mobility impairments.”

At first glance, this project seems to fall lock step in line with the walking chairs and sensor bots that have made assistive robotics a headline-maker throughout 2007.

What differs, however, is that unlike Toyota’s walking chair, the Delaware research was conducted at the University’s Early Learning Center - a daycare that conducted the in-house research for these prototypes.

The larger set of concerns this prototype raises is an old one: commercialization and ubiquity are key to mass adoption of assistive robots, but are hampered by current models of innovation dissemination and the limited set of choices for robotics development - corporate or academic research.

That the Delaware researchers were able to meet proof of concept is no small feat, but a working model does not a viable tool make. Incubation arms and technology transfer units within universities sometimes speed the deployment of store-shelve ready models, but often this comes at the cost of retained IP rights.  By contrast, corporate incubation units focus on fiddling with expensive showpieces designed not for commercialization but instead to grab media attention, demonstrate thought leadership and, of course, secure valuable patents.

Posted by Greg at September 27th, 2006

ITWales.com has posted perhaps the best transhumanist-themed material I’ve read in a long time. Ian Pearson is a futurologist with BT, which is of note itself– big business is taking note of the weirdness that is the near future. While the interview doesn’t really cover new ground, it take a pragmatic approach that addresses the concerns as well as the benefits and looks how the emerging technology will be adopted and used by the non-transhumanist set.

Best of all, Pearson is able to explain his ideas in a way that anyone can understand. He doesn’t rely on fuzzy concepts like “the singularity” or “molecular manufacturing”, rather drawing on pop culture and concrete examples to illustrate a future that is at once exciting and frightening.

Highlights include:

• “in the next 15 years - what we can reasonably expect in that timeframe is still probably largely metal and plastic robots, and something not very far away from what we saw in the film I, Robot, you know, slightly more humanoid.”
• “in around 20-25 years time where we can do the full 3D video straight into your active contact lenses, and full 3D audio, and also a sensory experience in terms of touch… Many would do it for relationship purposes - if you’re in New York and your partner’s in London you might want to make love across the network.”
• Discussion of a world where we give up on any pretenses of security, because the sophistication of threats so greatly exceed our ability to effectively manage them.

Read it now.

Posted by Greg at January 1st, 2006

Here are a few thoughts from Sherry Turkle on the dangers of virtuality:

What does this deployment of “nurturing technology” at the two most dependent moments of the life cycle say about us? What will it do to us? Do plans to provide relational robots to attend to children and the elderly make us less likely to look for other solutions for their care? People come to feel love for their robots, but if our experience with relational artifacts is based on a fundamentally deceitful interchange, can it be good for us? Or might it be good for us in the “feel good” sense, but bad for us in our lives as moral beings?

Sidenote: Turkle is hot!

Posted by Greg at July 18th, 2005

The International Herald Tribune is carrying an article on the Nuvo, a Japanese companion robot that is making its way to North America.

What makes this article interesting is that the author talks about his experience with the bot rather than its features and technical specs. However, he decided that while Nuvo was fun to have around and an interesting pet, he was still lacking what most people secretly want from a household companionbot:

I found myself wanting Nuvo to provide magical servitude and sparkling wit. I wanted it to accidentally drop the salt shaker in the mixing bowl and then be able to laugh about it because it realized it was funny, or perhaps not laugh because it was annoyed at having made a mistake. I wanted it to know the difference between the two emotions, and the complex circumstances that can cause both to arise.

Posted by Greg at July 12th, 2005

Robotics Daily has a piece on an upcoming exhibition in Dublin. ArtBots: The Robot Talent Show.

Featuring 21 works selected from a large and diverse pool of entries submitted by artists from around the world, the show celebrates the strange and wonderful collision of shifty artists, disgraced engineers, high/low/no tech hackers, rogue scientists, beauty school dropouts, backyard pyros, and industrial spys that has come to define the emerging field of robotic art. Participants include robots that dance, draw, wiggle, clack, sway, and bobble, as well a number of works the form and function of which are not yet well understood. In addition, two free robotics workshops will be offered throughout the show.

For now, the stars of the show are as much the creators of the bots as the bots themselves. How long will it be before robots themselves have enough personality and are reliable enough that their creators can stay backstage like Hollywood handlers while the bots truly take centre stage?

Posted by Greg at July 6th, 2005

The growing field of teledildonics has been getting a lot of exposure lately, even spawning its own open source project. Dreams of realistic sex with computer programs and/or remote partners are driving development of things like cellphone vibrator programs and the long-running online joke, F-U/F-me.

Some of these dreams may be just a bit closer to reality thanks to research from an unlikely (and unwitting) partner - Michigan State University. Robotics researchers there have developed a robotic hand that can be used to give remote breast exams. The hand is sensitive enough to changes in pressure that the remote doctor can feel the breast lumps through feedback in the glove worn to control the device.

Combine this technology with a realistic human robot and a Real Doll, and you’re coming pretty close to functional sexbots that could be controlled either by a local computer or by a remote partner. Creepy? Hot? You decide.