Whats it like to be a robot Leila Takayama

You only get one chance
to make a first impression,

and that’s true if you’re a robot
as well as if you’re a person.

The first time that I met
one of these robots

was at a place
called Willow Garage in 2008.

When I went to visit there,
my host walked me into the building

and we met this little guy.

He was rolling into the hallway,

came up to me, sat there,

stared blankly past me,

did nothing for a while,

rapidly spun his head around 180 degrees

and then ran away.

And that was not a great first impression.

The thing that I learned
about robots that day

is that they kind of do their own thing,

and they’re not totally aware of us.

And I think as we’re experimenting
with these possible robot futures,

we actually end up learning
a lot more about ourselves

as opposed to just these machines.

And what I learned that day

was that I had pretty high
expectations for this little dude.

He was not only supposed to be able
to navigate the physical world,

but also be able
to navigate my social world –

he’s in my space; it’s a personal robot.

wWhy didn’t it understand me?

My host explained to me,

“Well, the robot is trying
to get from point A to point B,

and you were an obstacle in his way,

so he had to replan his path,

figure out where to go,

and then get there some other way,”

which was actually
not a very efficient thing to do.

If that robot had figured out
that I was a person, not a chair,

and that I was willing
to get out of its way

if it was trying to get somewhere,

then it actually
would have been more efficient

at getting its job done

if it had bothered
to notice that I was a human

and that I have different affordances
than things like chairs and walls do.

You know, we tend to think of these robots
as being from outer space

and from the future
and from science fiction,

and while that could be true,

I’d actually like to argue
that robots are here today,

and they live and work
amongst us right now.

These are two robots that live in my home.

They vacuum the floors
and they cut the grass

every single day,

which is more than I would do
if I actually had time to do these tasks,

and they probably
do it better than I would, too.

This one actually takes care of my kitty.

Every single time
he uses the box, it cleans it,

which is not something I’m willing to do,

and it actually makes
his life better as well as mine.

And while we call these robot products –

it’s a “robot vacuum cleaner,
it’s a robot lawnmower,

it’s a robot littler box,”

I think there’s actually a bunch
of other robots hiding in plain sight

that have just become so darn useful

and so darn mundane

that we call them things
like, “dishwasher,” right?

They get new names.

They don’t get called robot anymore

because they actually
serve a purpose in our lives.

Similarly, a thermostat, right?

I know my robotics friends out there

are probably cringing
at me calling this a robot,

but it has a goal.

Its goal is to make my house
66 degrees Fahrenheit,

and it senses the world.

It knows it’s a little bit cold,

it makes a plan and then
it acts on the physical world.

It’s robotics.

Even if it might not
look like Rosie the Robot,

it’s doing something
that’s really useful in my life

so I don’t have to take care

of turning the temperature
up and down myself.

And I think these systems
live and work amongst us now,

and not only are these systems
living amongst us

but you are probably
a robot operator, too.

When you drive your car,

it feels like you are operating machinery.

You are also going
from point A to point B,

but your car probably has power steering,

it probably has automatic braking systems,

it might have an automatic transmission
and maybe even adaptive cruise control.

And while it might not be
a fully autonomous car,

it has bits of autonomy,

and they’re so useful

and they make us drive safer,

and we just sort of feel
like they’re invisible-in-use, right?

So when you’re driving your car,

you should just feel like
you’re going from one place to another.

It doesn’t feel like it’s this big thing
that you have to deal with and operate

and use these controls

because we spent so long
learning how to drive

that they’ve become
extensions of ourselves.

When you park that car
in that tight little garage space,

you know where your corners are.

And when you drive a rental car
that maybe you haven’t driven before,

it takes some time
to get used to your new robot body.

And this is also true for people
who operate other types of robots,

so I’d like to share with you
a few stories about that.

Dealing with the problem
of remote collaboration.

So, at Willow Garage
I had a coworker named Dallas,

and Dallas looked like this.

He worked from his home in Indiana
in our company in California.

He was a voice in a box
on the table in most of our meetings,

which was kind of OK
except that, you know,

if we had a really heated debate
and we didn’t like what he was saying,

we might just hang up on him.

(Laughter)

Then we might have a meeting
after that meeting

and actually make the decisions
in the hallway afterwards

when he wasn’t there anymore.

So that wasn’t so great for him.

And as a robotics company at Willow,

we had some extra
robot body parts laying around,

so Dallas and his buddy Curt
put together this thing,

which looks kind of
like Skype on a stick on wheels,

which seems like a techy, silly toy,

but really it’s probably
one of the most powerful tools

that I’ve seen ever made
for remote collaboration.

So now, if I didn’t answer
Dallas' email question,

he could literally roll into my office,

block my doorway
and ask me the question again –

(Laughter)

until I answered it.

And I’m not going to turn him off, right?
That’s kind of rude.

Not only was it good
for these one-on-one communications,

but also for just showing up
at the company all-hands meeting.

Getting your butt in that chair

and showing people that you’re present
and committed to your project

is a big deal

and can help remote collaboration a ton.

We saw this over the period
of months and then years,

not only at our company
but at others, too.

The best thing that can happen
with these systems

is that it starts to feel
like you’re just there.

It’s just you, it’s just your body,

and so people actually start
to give these things personal space.

So when you’re having a stand-up meeting,

people will stand around the space

just as they would
if you were there in person.

That’s great until
there’s breakdowns and it’s not.

People, when they first see these robots,

are like, “Wow, where’s the components?
There must be a camera over there,”

and they start poking your face.

“You’re talking too softly,
I’m going to turn up your volume,”

which is like having a coworker
walk up to you and say,

“You’re speaking too softly,
I’m going to turn up your face.”

That’s awkward and not OK,

and so we end up having to build
these new social norms

around using these systems.

Similarly, as you start
feeling like it’s your body,

you start noticing things like,
“Oh, my robot is kind of short.”

Dallas would say things to me –
he was six-foot tall –

and we would take him via robot
to cocktail parties and things like that,

as you do,

and the robot was about five-foot-tall,
which is close to my height.

And he would tell me,

“You know, people are not
really looking at me.

I feel like I’m just looking
at this sea of shoulders,

and it’s just – we need a taller robot.”

And I told him,

“Um, no.

You get to walk in my shoes for today.

You get to see what it’s like
to be on the shorter end of the spectrum.”

And he actually ended up building
a lot of empathy for that experience,

which was kind of great.

So when he’d come visit in person,

he no longer stood over me
as he was talking to me,

he would sit down
and talk to me eye to eye,

which was kind of a beautiful thing.

So we actually decided
to look at this in the laboratory

and see what others kinds of differences
things like robot height would make.

And so half of the people in our study
used a shorter robot,

half of the people in our study
used a taller robot

and we actually found
that the exact same person

who has the exact same body
and says the exact same things as someone,

is more persuasive
and perceived as being more credible

if they’re in a taller robot form.

It makes no rational sense,

but that’s why we study psychology.

And really, you know,
the way that Cliff Nass would put this

is that we’re having to deal
with these new technologies

despite the fact
that we have very old brains.

Human psychology is not changing
at the same speed that tech is

and so we’re always playing catch-up,

trying to make sense of this world

where these autonomous things
are running around.

Usually, things that talk are people,
not machines, right?

And so we breathe a lot of meaning
into things like just height of a machine,

not a person,

and attribute that
to the person using the system.

You know, this, I think,
is really important

when you’re thinking about robotics.

It’s not so much about reinventing humans,

it’s more about figuring out
how we extend ourselves, right?

And we end up using things
in ways that are sort of surprising.

So these guys can’t play pool
because the robots don’t have arms,

but they can heckle the guys
who are playing pool

and that can be an important thing
for team bonding,

which is kind of neat.

People who get really good
at operating these systems

will even do things
like make up new games,

like robot soccer
in the middle of the night,

pushing the trash cans around.

But not everyone’s good.

A lot of people have trouble
operating these systems.

This is actually a guy
who logged into the robot

and his eyeball was turned
90 degrees to the left.

He didn’t know that,

so he ended up just bashing
around the office,

running into people’s desks,
getting super embarrassed,

laughing about it –
his volume was way too high.

And this guy here
in the image is telling me,

“We need a robot mute button.”

And by that what he really meant
was we don’t want it to be so disruptive.

So as a robotics company,

we added some obstacle
avoidance to the system.

It got a little laser range finder
that could see the obstacles,

and if I as a robot operator
try to say, run into a chair,

it wouldn’t let me,
it would just plan a path around,

which seems like a good idea.

People did hit fewer obstacles
using that system, obviously,

but actually, for some of the people,

it took them a lot longer
to get through our obstacle course,

and we wanted to know why.

It turns out that there’s
this important human dimension –

a personality dimension
called locus of control,

and people who have
a strong internal locus of control,

they need to be the masters
of their own destiny –

really don’t like giving up control
to an autonomous system –

so much so that they will
fight the autonomy;

“If I want to hit that chair,
I’m going to hit that chair.”

And so they would actually suffer
from having that autonomous assistance,

which is an important thing for us to know

as we’re building increasingly
autonomous, say, cars, right?

How are different people going
to grapple with that loss of control?

It’s going to be different
depending on human dimensions.

We can’t treat humans
as if we’re just one monolithic thing.

We vary by personality, by culture,

we even vary by emotional state
moment to moment,

and being able to design these systems,

these human-robot interaction systems,

we need to take into account
the human dimensions,

not just the technological ones.

Along with a sense of control
also comes a sense of responsibility.

And if you were a robot operator
using one of these systems,

this is what the interface
would look like.

It looks a little bit like a video game,

which can be good because
that’s very familiar to people,

but it can also be bad

because it makes people feel
like it’s a video game.

We had a bunch of kids
over at Stanford play with the system

and drive the robot
around our office in Menlo Park,

and the kids started saying things like,

“10 points if you hit that guy over there.
20 points for that one.”

And they would
chase them down the hallway.

(Laughter)

I told them, “Um, those are real people.

They’re actually going to bleed
and feel pain if you hit them.”

And they’d be like, “OK, got it.”

But five minutes later,
they would be like,

“20 points for that guy over there,
he just looks like he needs to get hit.”

It’s a little bit
like “Ender’s Game,” right?

There is a real world on that other side

and I think it’s our responsibility
as people designing these interfaces

to help people remember

that there’s real consequences
to their actions

and to feel a sense of responsibility

when they’re operating
these increasingly autonomous things.

These are kind of a great example

of experimenting with one
possible robotic future,

and I think it’s pretty cool
that we can extend ourselves

and learn about the ways
that we extend ourselves

into these machines

while at the same time
being able to express our humanity

and our personality.

We also build empathy for others

in terms of being
shorter, taller, faster, slower,

and maybe even armless,

which is kind of neat.

We also build empathy
for the robots themselves.

This is one of my favorite robots.

It’s called the Tweenbot.

And this guy has a little flag that says,

“I’m trying to get
to this intersection in Manhattan,”

and it’s cute and rolls
forward, that’s it.

It doesn’t know how to build a map,
it doesn’t know how to see the world,

it just asks for help.

The nice thing about people

is that it can actually depend
upon the kindness of strangers.

It did make it across the park
to the other side of Manhattan –

which is pretty great –

just because people would pick it up
and point it in the right direction.

(Laughter)

And that’s great, right?

We’re trying to build
this human-robot world

in which we can coexist
and collaborate with one another,

and we don’t need to be fully autonomous
and just do things on our own.

We actually do things together.

And to make that happen,

we actually need help from people
like the artists and the designers,

the policy makers, the legal scholars,

psychologists, sociologists,
anthropologists –

we need more perspectives in the room

if we’re going to do the thing
that Stu Card says we should do,

which is invent the future
that we actually want to live in.

And I think we can continue to experiment

with these different
robotic futures together,

and in doing so, we will end up
learning a lot more about ourselves.

Thank you.

(Applause)

您只有一次
机会给人留下第一印象,

无论您是机器人
还是人,都是如此。

我第一次
见到这样的机器人

是在 2008 年在一个
叫 Willow Garage 的地方。

当我去那里参观时,
我的主人带我走进了大楼

,我们遇到了这个小家伙。

他滚进走廊,

走到我面前,坐在那里,

茫然地盯着我身后,

一时间什么也没做,

迅速把头转了个一百八十度

,然后就跑了。

这并不是一个很好的第一印象。

那天我了解到的关于机器人的事情

是,它们会做自己的事情,

而且它们并不完全了解我们。

我认为,当我们在
试验这些可能的机器人未来时,

我们实际上最终会
更多地了解自己

,而不仅仅是这些机器。

那天我学到的

是,我
对这个小家伙有很高的期望。

他不仅应该
能够驾驭物理世界,

还应该
能够驾驭我的社交世界——

他在我的空间里; 这是一个个人机器人。

w它为什么不理解我?

我的主人向我解释说:

“好吧,机器人正
试图从 A 点到 B 点,

而你是他前进的障碍,

所以他必须重新规划路径,

弄清楚要去哪里,

然后到达那里 其他方式,”

这实际上
不是一件非常有效的事情。

如果那个机器人
发现我是一个人,而不是一把椅子,

并且

如果它试图到达某个地方,我愿意让开它,

那么它实际上
会更有效

地完成它的工作

费心
地注意到我是一个人类

,并且我有
与椅子和墙壁之类的东西不同的可供性。

你知道,我们倾向于认为这些
机器人来自外太空

,来自未来
,来自科幻小说

,虽然这可能是真的,但

我实际上想说
机器人今天就在这里

,他们在其中生活和工作
我们现在。

这是两个住在我家的机器人。

他们每天都用吸尘器吸尘
和割草

如果我真的有时间做这些任务,我会做的更多,

而且他们
可能也比我做得更好。

这个实际上照顾我的小猫。

每次
他使用盒子时,它都会清理它,

这不是我愿意做的事情

,这实际上让
他和我的生活都变得更好。

虽然我们称这些机器人产品——

它是“机器人吸尘器
、机器人割草机

、机器人小盒子”,但

我认为实际上还有
一堆其他机器人隐藏在明显的视线

中,它们变得非常有用

,所以 该死的平凡

,我们称它们为
“洗碗机”,对吗?

他们得到了新的名字。

它们不再被称为机器人,

因为它们实际上
为我们的生活服务。

同样,恒温器,对吗?

我知道我的机器人朋友

可能会对
我称其为机器人感到畏缩,

但它有一个目标。

它的目标是让我的房子达到
66 华氏度

,它可以感知世界。

它知道它有点冷,

它制定了一个计划,然后
它作用于物理世界。

是机器人。

即使它可能
看起来不像 Rosie the Robot,

但它正在做一些
对我的生活非常有用的事情,

所以我不必

自己负责调高和调低温度。

我认为这些系统
现在生活和工作在我们中间

,不仅这些系统
生活在我们中间,

而且你可能
也是机器人操作员。

当你开车时

,感觉就像你在操作机器。

你也是
从 A 点到 B 点,

但你的车可能有动力转向,

它可能有自动制动系统,

它可能有一个自动变速器
,甚至可能有自适应巡航控制。

虽然它可能不是
一辆完全自动驾驶的汽车,

但它有一点自主性

,它们非常有用

,它们让我们驾驶更安全

,我们只是
觉得它们在使用中是隐形的,对吧?

因此,当您驾驶汽车时,

您应该感觉
自己正在从一个地方前往另一个地方。

感觉这不是
你必须处理、操作

和使用这些控件的大事,

因为我们花了很长时间
学习如何驾驶

,以至于它们已经成为
我们自己的延伸。

当你把那辆车停
在那个狭小的车库里时,

你就知道你的角落在哪里。

而且,当您驾驶
可能从未驾驶过的租赁汽车时

,需要一些时间
来适应您的新机器人身体。

对于
操作其他类型机器人的人来说也是如此,

所以我想和大家分享
一些关于这方面的故事。

处理
远程协作问题。

所以,在 Willow Garage,
我有一位名叫达拉斯的同事

,达拉斯看起来像这样。

他在印第安纳州的家中
在我们位于加利福尼亚的公司工作。

在我们的大多数会议中,他都是桌子上的一个声音,

这还不错,
除了,你知道,

如果我们进行了一场非常激烈的辩论
并且我们不喜欢他所说的话,

我们可能会挂断电话 在他身上。

(笑声)

然后我们可能会
在那次会议之后开会

,然后

在他不在的时候在走廊里做决定。

所以这对他来说并不是那么好。

作为 Willow 的一家机器人公司,

我们有一些额外的
机器人身体部件,

所以 Dallas 和他的好友 Curt
组装了这个东西,

它看起来有点
像带轮子的棍子上的 Skype,

它看起来像一个技术性、愚蠢的玩具,

但实际上,它可能

是我见过的
用于远程协作的最强大的工具之一。

所以现在,如果我不回答
达拉斯的电子邮件问题,

他可以直接走进我的办公室,

挡住我的门口
,再次问我这个问题——

(笑声)

直到我回答为止。

而且我不会把他关掉的,对吧?
这有点粗鲁。

这不仅有
利于这些一对一的交流,

而且也有利于出现
在公司全体会议上。

把你的屁股坐在那把椅子上

,向人们展示你在场
并致力于你的项目

是一件大事

,可以帮助远程协作。

我们在几个月乃至几年的时间里看到了这一点

不仅在我们公司
,在其他公司也是如此。

这些系统可能发生的最好的事情

是,它开始感觉
就像你就在那里一样。

只是你,只是你的身体

,所以人们实际上开始
给这些东西个人空间。

因此,当您举行站立会议时,

人们会站在空间周围,

就像您亲自在场时一样。

这很好,直到
出现故障,但事实并非如此。

人们第一次看到这些机器人时

会说,“哇,组件在哪里?
那里肯定有摄像头”,

然后他们开始戳你的脸。

“你说话太小声了,
我要把你的音量调大,”

这就像让一个同事
走到你面前说,

“你说话太小声了,
我要把你的脸调大。 "

这很尴尬,也不好

,所以我们最终不得不围绕使用这些系统建立
这些新的社会规范

同样,当您开始
感觉这是您的身体时,

您会开始注意到诸如
“哦,我的机器人有点矮”之类的事情。

达拉斯会对我说些什么——
他有六英尺高

——我们会通过机器人带他
去参加鸡尾酒会之类的事情,

就像你做的那样

,机器人大约有五英尺高
,接近 我的身高。

他会告诉我,

“你知道,人们并没有
真正看着我。

我觉得我只是在
看着这片肩膀的海洋

,只是——我们需要一个更高的机器人。”

我告诉他,

“嗯,不。

你今天可以穿上我的鞋子。

你会看到
在频谱较短的一端是什么感觉。”

实际上,他最终
对这种经历产生了很多同理心,

这真是太好了。

所以当他亲自来拜访时,

他不再站在
我面前和我说话,

而是坐下
来和我面对面地交谈,

这是一件很美好的事情。

所以我们实际上决定
在实验室里看看这个

,看看机器人高度等其他类型的差异
会产生什么。

因此,我们研究中的一半人
使用了一个较短的机器人,

我们研究中的一半人
使用了一个更高的机器人

,我们实际上发现
,与某人

拥有完全相同的身体
并说同样的话的完全相同的人,

如果它们是更高的机器人形式,则更有说服力并被认为更可信。

这没有任何理性意义,

但这就是我们学习心理学的原因。

真的,你知道
,克里夫纳斯所说的方式

是,

尽管我们的大脑非常老旧,但我们不得不处理这些新技术。

人类心理的变化
速度与科技的变化速度不同

,因此我们一直在追赶,

试图理解

这些自主
事物四处奔波的世界。

通常,说话的东西是人,
而不是机器,对吧?

因此,我们
为机器的高度而

不是人的高度

赋予了很多意义,并将其归因
于使用系统的人。

你知道,我认为,

当你考虑机器人技术时,这一点非常重要。

与其说是重塑人类,

不如说是想
弄清楚我们如何扩展自己,对吧?

我们最终
以令人惊讶的方式使用事物。

所以这些人不能打台球,
因为机器人没有手臂,

但他们可以质问打台球的人

,这
对团队凝聚力很重要,

这很巧妙。

真正
擅长操作这些系统的

人甚至会做一些事情,
比如制作新游戏,

比如
半夜的机器人足球、

推垃圾桶。

但不是每个人都好。

很多人在
操作这些系统时遇到了麻烦。

这实际上是一个
登录机器人的家伙

,他的眼球
向左旋转了 90 度。

他不知道,

所以他最后只是
在办公室里打闹,

跑到人们的办公桌上,
非常尴尬,

笑着说——
他的音量太高了。

图片中的这个人告诉我,

“我们需要一个机器人静音按钮。”

他真正的意思
是我们不希望它如此具有破坏性。

因此,作为一家机器人公司,

我们在系统中添加了一些避障
功能。

它有一个可以看到障碍物的小型激光测距仪

,如果我作为机器人操作员
尝试说,撞到椅子上,

它不会让我,
它只会规划一条路径,

这似乎是个好主意 . 显然,

人们使用该系统确实遇到了更少的障碍

但实际上,对于某些人来说,

他们花了更长的时间
才能通过我们的障碍路线

,我们想知道为什么。

原来,
有一个重要的人性维度

——人格维度,
叫做控制点,

内心控制点很强的人,

他们需要
成为自己命运的主人——

真的不喜欢放弃控制
到一个自治系统 -

以至于他们将
与自治作斗争;

“如果我想打那把椅子,
我就打那把椅子。”

所以他们实际上会
因为获得自主协助

而受苦,这对我们来说是一件很重要的事情,

因为我们正在建造越来越
自主的汽车,对吧?

不同的人将
如何应对这种失控?

它会
因人的维度而有所不同。

我们不能把人类
当作一个单一的东西来对待。

我们因个性、文化

而异,甚至每时每刻都因情绪状态而异

并且能够设计这些系统,

这些人机交互系统,

我们需要
考虑人的维度,

而不仅仅是技术维度。

除了控制
感之外,还有责任感。

如果您是
使用这些系统之一的机器人操作员

,界面
将如下所示。

它看起来有点像电子游戏,

这可能很好,因为
人们对此非常熟悉,

但也可能很糟糕,

因为它让人
觉得它是电子游戏。

我们
在斯坦福大学让一群孩子玩这个系统,


在我们位于门洛帕克的办公室里驾驶机器人

,孩子们开始说,

“如果你在那边打那个人,得 10 分。那个人得
20 分。”

他们会
沿着走廊追赶他们。

(笑声)

我告诉他们,“嗯,那些是真实的人。

如果你打他们,他们实际上会流血并感到疼痛。”

他们会说,“好吧,明白了。”

但五分钟后,
他们会说,

“那边那个家伙得 20 分,
他只是看起来需要被击中。”

这有点
像“安德的游戏”,对吧?

另一边有一个真实的世界

,我认为我们有责任
设计这些界面,

以帮助人们

记住他们的行为会产生真正的后果

在他们操作
这些日益自主的事物时感受到责任感。

这些

是尝试一种
可能的机器人未来

的一个很好的例子,我
认为我们可以扩展自己

并了解
我们将自己扩展

到这些机器的方式,

同时
能够表达我们的人性

和 我们的个性。

我们也会


更矮、更高、更快、更慢,

甚至可能是无臂的方面建立对他人的同理心,

这有点整洁。

我们还为机器人本身建立了同理心

这是我最喜欢的机器人之一。

它被称为 Tweenbot。

这个家伙有一面小旗,上面写着

“我正试图
到达曼哈顿的这个十字路口”

,它很可爱,而且会
向前滚动,就是这样。

它不知道如何构建地图,
它不知道如何看世界,

它只是寻求帮助。

人的好处

在于,它实际上可以
依赖于陌生人的善意。

它确实穿过公园
到达了曼哈顿的另一边——

这非常棒——

只是因为人们会把它捡起来
并指向正确的方向。

(笑声)

那很好,对吧?

我们正在尝试
建立一个人机世界

,我们可以在其中共存
和协作

,我们不需要完全自主
,只需要自己做事。

我们实际上是一起做事的。

为了实现这一点,

我们实际上需要
艺术家和设计师

、政策制定者、法律学者、

心理学家、社会学家、
人类学家等人的帮助——如果我们要做这件事,

我们需要更多的观点。

Stu Card 说我们应该做

的就是创造
我们真正想要生活的

未来

我们自己。

谢谢你。

(掌声)