Prakash Per­sad

Ro­bots have moved from the realms of sci­ence fic­tion and may well cause some so­cial fric­tion as they mi­grate from the fac­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment in­to so­ci­ety.These new so-called so­cial ro­bots will be in­ter­act­ing more and more with hu­mans in ever-ex­pand­ing do­mains.These in­clude phys­i­cal ther­a­py, care for the sick and el­der­ly, house­hold chores and en­ter­tain­ment.Peo­ple are afraid that these in­creased in­ter­ac­tions be­tween mankind and ro­bot-kind will be fraught with dan­gers lead­ing to death and in­jury.

To al­lay such fears and in­deed for ro­bots be suc­cess­ful in their pre­scribed role, they will have to be en­dowed with so­cial be­hav­iours and rules ap­pro­pri­ate for their do­mains of in­ter­ac­tions.Hu­mans learn the rules of en­gage­ment for a large va­ri­ety of sit­u­a­tions.So the rules of en­gage­ment or be­hav­iour, if you wish, in the class­room is dif­fer­ent from that in the restau­rant or in a so­cial event like a wed­ding.

In the restau­rant we may talk and laugh loud­ly (well Tri­nis tend to be loud) and of course, eat. That would not be ac­cept­able in a class­room or dur­ing a wed­ding ser­vice. Sim­i­lar­ly ro­bots can be en­dowed with the rules of en­gage­ment for their in­ter­ac­tions.In the fac­to­ry en­vi­ron­ment, which is a strict­ly reg­u­lat­ed one for both hu­mans and ro­bots, the in­ter­ac­tions are quite safe.

The home en­vi­ron­ment, how­ev­er, is a lot more com­plex than that of in­dus­try and hence the ro­bots them­selves must be pro­grammed to re­gard hu­man safe­ty as their high­est pri­or­i­ty.Col­li­sion, with fixed ob­jects and hu­mans or pets, is a dan­ger that im­me­di­ate­ly comes to mind.The faster the ro­bot moves, the more the like­li­hood of a col­li­sion. Ro­bots then clear­ly move at fair­ly low speeds when they are in the home en­vi­ron­ment.

Col­li­sion-avoid­ance has now be­come quite a ma­ture tech­nol­o­gy with which many ve­hi­cles are be­ing equipped.Sim­i­lar tech­nol­o­gy would eas­i­ly be adopt­ed to make house­hold or so­cial ro­bots col­li­sion-proof.Peo­ple have come to re­alise that ro­bots can make quite quick and good de­ci­sions but there is a lin­ger­ing fear that ro­bots have no feel­ings and hence would have nei­ther re­morse nor com­pas­sion. This could make them dan­ger­ous, like cold blood­ed killers and crim­i­nals.

This is far-fetched, as ro­bots do not suf­fer from the an­ti-so­cial ten­den­cies and in­ad­e­qua­cies of hu­man be­ings. Nev­er­the­less, the con­cern is a le­git­i­mate one as hu­mans are gre­gar­i­ous crea­tures who need and form emo­tion­al bonds.So if ro­bots are to pro­vide com­pan­ion­ship, in ad­di­tion to house­hold help, then pro­gram­ming ro­bots with a some sort of abil­i­ty to recog­nise and show emo­tions would be nec­es­sary.

A few months ago, a Japan­ese ro­bot named Pep­per was launched which, ac­cord­ing to its cre­ators, could recog­nise and demon­strate emo­tions.The Japan­ese have and are heav­i­ly in­vest­ing in this area as their ro­bots are be­ing tar­get­ed for com­pan­ion­ship and care of an age­ing pop­u­la­tion.There are many who think that it would not be pos­si­ble to achieve the goal of a car­ing, com­pan­ion­ate ro­bot. It is how­ev­er very pos­si­ble and de­sir­able.

When we are speak­ing to some­one, they gen­er­al­ly nod their heads or mur­mur at ap­pro­pri­ate in­ter­vals, to ac­knowl­edge they are lis­ten­ing and un­der­stand­ing what we are say­ing.An un­der­grad­u­ate, en­gi­neer­ing stu­dent can de­sign and build a ro­bot that can nod and mur­mur "uh­mm" at in­ter­val that can be ei­ther ran­dom or pe­ri­od­ic, re­al­is­ti­cal­ly sim­u­lat­ing hu­man be­hav­iour.Some may ar­gue that the ro­bot does not un­der­stand what we are say­ing and is mere­ly mim­ic­k­ing hu­man-like ac­tions.

But is it not true that many a time we are un­able to tell if the hu­man to whom we are speak­ing re­al­ly care about what we are say­ing and in fact may be mock­ing or hu­mour­ing us? We can be sure that the ro­bot would not.