Four perspectives on robots in everyday life

There are still a number of challenges to overcome, to make interactive robots part of our everyday life: Although supporting technologies such as speech recognition and computer vision have improved significantly, their application in unconstrained environments is still error prone. Future embodied agents are expected not be unconnected autonomous units, but being interconnected via the cloud, we talk about “distributed intelligence”.

This presupposes to solve a number of problems in particular in the context of safety, data control and reliability. Most importantly, interaction requires predictive models for human behaviors since the smoothness of our actions relies to a large degree on our ability to predict the action of the interaction partner as well to make vice versa our own actions predictable.

Finally, there still are severe limits in existing hardware: For example, there are today no artificial hands available that could compete with human hands. Also, the senses touch, taste and smell are technically not well understood as also their interaction with other senses. Despite impressive progress in two leg motion, we are still not a at a stage, where such robots can operate stable and price efficient enough, to be used on a large scale. 

Literature and the arts have, from the very beginning, shaped the way robots are understood, designed, and valued in society. Science fiction in particular has profoundly influenced how we design, perceive, and interact with robots in society. From the very beginning, the word "robot" itself emerged not from engineering labs but from Karel Čapek's 1921 play "R.U.R.," where the Czech word "robota" (forced labor) gave us the term we use today. This literary origin reveals an important truth:  robots have always been as much cultural creations as technological ones.

When engineers and designers create robots, they often draw direct inspiration from science fiction. Isaac Asimov's “Three Laws of Robotics,” originally invented for his short stories, have become a serious starting point for discussions about AI ethics and machine behavior. The humanoid robots we see in research labs today owe their appearance to iconic images—from, for example, films like Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) and Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) — that derive from prominent science fiction stories. 

But as these examples also indicate, artistic depictions of robots also pose pressing questions about the social implications of automation. The way robots appear in the cultural imagination reveal underlying assumptions about race, gender, and class—from the feminized digital assistants like Siri to concerns about which jobs are “replaceable.” For example, dystopian narratives of the future often foreground scenarios in which large-scale automation in society increases rather than alleviates wealth inequality. For other theorists and artists, however, automation holds the promise for more radical and inclusive societies. Donna Haraway’s famous “Cyborg Manifesto” (1985) was written in view of the changes—and concomitant fears—that increased automation in the workplace brought to society. Crucially for Haraway, the intersection of computer devices, automation, and the body placed humanity at a crossroads: we could continue to use technology in a manner that creates more precarious life, or else we could embrace the radical potential of the ‘cyborg’ figure.

In the decades since, artists in live theater, dance, and other areas have incorporated robotic technologies into their performances to explore the radical horizons that the cyborg offers. As we increasingly share our world with AI and robots, literature and the arts continue to provide a crucial framework for understanding not just what these technologies can do, but what they mean for our humanity. The robots we build tomorrow will inevitably reflect the stories we tell about them today.

The imagination of what robots and drones can do for society are many but societies continue to struggle with the necessary transformations. Future visions are therefore essential in increasing legitimacy, securing support from potential stakeholders and access to resources. A systems perspective supports the identification of some of the root causes of the lacking transformations. 

As an example. Proponents of a new technology must continuously secure resources, develop the technology, and attract new firm entry, even before the technology demonstrates tangible commercial results. The guide is a compelling vision like, “Pizza delivery to the door by drone” or “Robot taking over care of elderly members of society”. So even though societies have formulated some visions for the use of the technology, resources are awarded to companies and start-ups, the widespread use is still not realized.

The social-technological business perspective approaches this research gap by identifying the causes and mechanisms and asks for instance why do investments in technology development continue despite the low adoption in society? What are the long-term implications—good and bad—of implementing the technology in society, which must be considered in the near-future? What is the time horizon for realizing the visions? 

Coming soon.