The Need for Humanoid Robots



A side profile photo of a robotic-looking woman with long blue hair, a silver visor, and wires dangling from her torso.

The Need for Humanoid Robots
Young Adult Technology Editorial

Written by DJ Hadoken Exlamparaaghis


In 1996, the sixth prototype in a humanoid robot project, started by Honda, was introduced to the world. Compared to its predecessors, the older prototypes seemed more likely to frighten an audience- consisting of exposed wires, boxes and mechanical components strewn about with no outer protection.

So in an attempt to make their robots appear friendlier, Honda released the P2 in 1996 with an exterior cover. And a year later, it was followed by the P3, which featured an improved sleek design (see History of Humanoids, 2004). The ASIMO, being the latest model in the Honda robot series, is lighter in weight, has more capabilities, and is fitted with a more sophisticated exterior design.

Sony has implemented similar designs on its own humanoid robot project, dubbed the Sony Dream Robot. The QRIO model has been given a more high-tech, aesthetically pleasing design (see Sony Dream Robot QRIO, 2004). Other humanoid robot projects have also adopted this design mantra, such as the PINO and Toyota’s Partner Robot.

To briefly address the past humanoid robot evolutionary stages, autonomous movement has been the main focus of research for engineers for nearly two decades. This technology has gradually been realized and is being perfected through implementation of more efficient movement and advanced systems of balance. Obstacle and terrain perception (among other types of recognition) have also been implemented.

One of the primary goals of the ASIMO is to create a robot that can coexist with and help a human, performing difficult tasks that the human may not be capable of. The goal of the QRIO is to create a robotic companion that one would be able to play and converse with. To achieve these goals, both the ASIMO and QRIO must be able to move freely and easily about a common household environment. When this level of autonomous movement has finally been achieved, the direction of evolution for robots will change.

In order for this evolution to succeed and for a robot to “learn typical tasks required in everyday household environments” (Dillmann, 2004), sophisticated artificial intelligence and collaboration with humans is essential. A robot must be able to “quickly learn how to perform new tasks from natural human instruction” (Breazeal, 2004). However, as much as the robot must be equipped to learn from a human, a human must be ready to accept the presence of the robot.

“Robots increasingly have the potential to interact with people in daily life” (Kanda, 2004). The formation of relations between humans and robots will be the focus of the next stage of evolution.

In one experiment (see Kanda, 2004), conducted in an elementary school in Japan, two robots were introduced to a classroom. The aim of the experiment was to examine whether children could build relationships with and learn from robots, much as they would learn from other children. The students had an opportunity to interact with the robots for two weeks, where the robots would address the children only in English.

During this period, the students were tested to determine any improvement in English language skills as a result of their interactions. The experiment revealed that students who had a background or interest in English improved more than those who did not. This prior knowledge may have established a common ground between the robot and child, suggesting that robots may hold more of an influence over their users if they are designed to have something in common with them.

But why must the robot mimic the human form? To answer this, we must first analyze the significance of the exterior design of a robot.

According to the art and design director of the PINO humanoid robot project, Tatsuya Matsui, the necessity of exterior design, whether humanoid or not, is vital towards protecting the robot’s inside system (see Matsui 2000). “The exterior design of the robot will be integral to clarifying its diverse mechanical functions and asserting its autonomy” (2000). If the robot is to coexist with the consumer in a household, its design must be one that is proportionally suitable for its inner systems while also taking care not to “obfuscate its meaning by turning it into something entirely unintended” (2000). The design must distinguish the division between the autonomous robot and traditional appliances.

Matsui asserts that because our subconscious “often plays a role in our impression of distance” (2000), the size of a robot is also significant. “The robot must settle as compact as possible” (2000). Consumers may feel threatened by a robot larger than them and will refuse to buy a robot whose size would impose upon the space it is meant to share within a household.

However, a child-size robot would also be unacceptable, as the issue of a robot being seen as merely a toy arises. Researchers working on a humanoid project entitled “SIG” have generally agreed that the ideal size of a robot to operate in a limited space without compromising its own systems would be that of an adult woman.

advertisement
-
now back to the blog...


Interestingly, this conclusion seems to have been derived from the Greek classical concepts of beauty and the golden mean- where the various parts of the body are proportioned harmoniously and “comprise the ideal by which beauty is measured and by which we can determine the robot’s dimensions as an ideal” (2000).

Matsui also elaborates upon the concept of a humanoid robot not simply existing as a replicated human, but as a tool enabling researchers to analyze the “structure of human cognitive functions” (2000). In this light, the auditory receptors and eyes of a robot may be placed in similar areas as a human. The basic form of the human (primarily the upper half) must also be maintained in order “to avoid diffused reflection… that can result when the structure deviates from that basic form” (2000). Through the simulation of these systems, we are able to better “assess their integration into our cognitive functions” (2000).

One must also consider that a humanoid robot should exist only if “being humanoid represents a technological advantage over [the robot’s] relatively utilitarian counterparts” (Brooks, 2000).

One may present the case of the AIBO and similar canine robots as basis against the need for a robot in human form. It is true that the AIBO has been successfully integrated into the household, and indeed, robots in canine form may also evolve advanced capabilities beneficial to humans.

However, the companionship that a canine robot and human are capable of establishing cannot extend beyond that of animal and human. A humanoid is capable of performing the same tasks as a canine robot, but it is also capable of one additional facet- establishing a true relationship with a human. Referring once again to the concept of common ground, a humanoid robot and its user share the same basic physical characteristics, essentially creating the possibility of a human-to-human relationship.

A consumer will be prepared to accept a robot as a true friend (rather than a pet or object) simply because it can maintain its own posture, upright, on two legs, while the canine cannot. The humanoid form of robots is essential at defining the future role of robots within society. If we are to accept them in our households, we must be prepared to establish a relationship with them.

Research projects such as those of the PINO and SIG seek to gain more understanding of human intelligence. And if we are to fully understand human cognition, the humanoid robot is crucial.

Perhaps the reasoning behind humanoid robot production may also be existential; as humanity has yet to establish contact with another intelligent life-form, the creation of humanoid robots may be our attempt at creating a friend within this vast and lonely universe.

advertisement
-
now back to the blog...


Works Cited


Breazeal, C., Hoffman, G., & Lockerd A. (2004). Teaching and working with robots as a collaboration. WebLuis - Engineering, 3 2004. Retrieved Dec 12, 2004, from http://webluis.fcla.edu.


Brooks, R. (2000). Humanoid robots. Communications of the ACM, Volume 45, Issue 3.
Retrieved Dec 12, 2004, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=504729.504751.


Dillmann, R. (2004). Teaching and learning of robot tasks via observation of human performance.
WebLuis - Engineering, v 47 n 2-3 Jun 30 2004.
Retrieved Dec 12, 2004, from http://webluis.fcla.edu.


Honda Motor Co., Ltd., (2004). History of humanoids. retrieved Dec. 12, 2004, from
Honda Worldwide ASIMO Web site: http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/history/.


Kanda, T., Hirano T., Eaton D., and Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children : a field trial. WebLuis - Engineering, 19 n 1-2 2004.
Retrieved Dec 12, 2004, from http://webluis.fcla.edu.


Matsui, T. (2000). Robot design initiative. retrieved Dec. 12, 2004, from http://www.symbio.jst.go.jp/~tmatsui/~tmatui.htm.


Sony Corporation, (2004). Sony dream robot qrio. retrieved Dec. 12, 2004, from
Sony Global - QRIO Web site: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/.


An image showing side-by-side examples of the evolution of the humanoid robot projects of various manufacturers such as Honda and Sony.



advertisement
-

=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=

Blog

YouTube

Website

Buy Me a Coffee

.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.





advertisement
-