National Robotarium
Robo future: what do we want robots to do for us?
Thusha Rajendran Professor of Psychology, the National Robotarium
Thusha Rajendran is a Professor of Psychology based in the National Robotarium. Working with interdisciplinary partners in Computer Science, Engineering and Education, he develops and evaluates technologies at the cutting edge of human-robot interaction.
“You might find it surprising that there is no universally agreed definition of what a robot is. We have this idea that it’s an embodied agent that moves around the world, like one of the droids from Star Wars. However, you have probably got a robot in your pocket right now or on your desk, because many of us are already taking advantage of the virtual assistants integrated into our smartphones.
Robots can take on many different roles, including doing drudgery work for us, being our companions or acting as authority figures. I believe these categories will help us work out what we want them to do, and having clarity about their roles can guide us towards realising their potential. These roles are not fully decided yet, so we still have time to make decisions about what we want robots for.
However, to make informed choices, it’s vital that we focus on human needs, and ask the right questions, starting with: ‘What’s the problem we want to solve here?’. That way we can determine what we actually want robots to do for us when developing robot-based solutions.
Service robots might, for example, carry out repetitive tasks, thereby freeing up more leisure time for us, while companion robots might be socially engaging and support us to carry out basic functions such as when to take medication. Authority robots are likely to be found in more hazardous environments where the robot ‘takes charge’ – albeit with human oversight and control.
Helping humans in offshore wind farms or in nuclear environments – where robots do things we’d rather not do ourselves because of danger – is clearly advantageous. Also socially assistive robots, which can help people with tasks in the home or help those with developmental conditions, could dramatically improve quality of life for many vulnerable and isolated people.
This plethora of possibilities requires us to reassess how we think of robots, which in turn informs how we relate to them and how they will relate to us, including when we should and shouldn’t trust them and when they should and shouldn’t trust us.
Our Trust Node team is researching this important issue of trust as part of the UKRI Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Hub. We want to better understand human-robot interactions and that requires us to consider an individual’s personality characteristics, like our propensity to trust others, as well as the type of robot and the nature of the task. This, and projects like it, could ultimately help inform robot design by teasing out the different factors that contribute to trust.
At Heriot-Watt we are researching this important issue of trust.”
Clarity about their roles can guide us to realising their potential.”
As a ‘techno-optimist’, I believe there are many possibilities to create robots for good. Our Flash Robot can produce expressive behaviour in the form of human-like emotions. One application is in helping employers understand how they may need to change their workplace practices to assist employees with autism. Robots like Flash hint at ways we can change the environment, in order to make the workplace more accepting and acceptable to differences.
Part of the potential of the National Robotarium is how it not only acts as a physical ‘test-bed’ for robots and artificial intelligence, but also how it can be a conversational space; a place where people can ask questions, both technical and psychological, because every question about this technology is valid and will determine where it goes, how we use it and what robots can do for us.”
