Project #4

Dear Professor Rodrigo and my classmates,

This was one difficult semester.  While I felt as though I was performing exceptionally well at the beginning of the semester, various personal and school related issues began to accumulate and this class took a massive blow around halfway through.  Whether or not I obtain a passing grade is unknown at this point, but this class was extremely helpful either way.

I’ve never seen myself as an exceptional writer.  Traditionally, whenever massive writing assignments have to be done, I’ve always done them reluctantly.  This class has helped wonderfully.  The simple task of allowing me to write about my own personal field (such as Project #1) improves moral considerably.  To be honest, I’ve never cared so much for reading or writing.  It’s not that I have any disdain for reading.  I do actually read a lot, but most of my escapism has been in film and not so much with literature.  

One thing this class has helped with is organizing what needs to be done to prepare for a project.  I appreciate spending a week obtaining sources, another writing drafts, before finally submitting a project.  This helps me a lot.  I would always have a nasty habit of writing exactly one version of a paper and submitting it with very few if any revisions.  This class forced outlines and drafts which forced me to put more effort in planning.  I feel this helped a lot, especially with Project #2 (which had a lot of pre-planning involved).  Peer review and revision allowed me to see what other students were doing and use those ideas in my own projects.  Then I could see other student’s notes on my thoughts, and revise.  It was very helpful.

I also enjoyed being able to use different formats for projects.  Not every paper was submitted in a typical MLA format.  I actually did my Project 3 as a video, which was more akin to my background.  Though that project had enormous technical difficulties and held me up for weeks.  I somewhat regret choosing video.

I’m not an expert yet on anything.  I really enjoyed this class and what I learned.  Not just about writing, but even about my own field.  There’s still a few grammar issues I have and formatting usually gets me, but I enjoyed it a lot.

-          - Jon Thomas

Project #3

I did my project #3 as a video.  It's really late, took a lot of time, but I'm fairly satisfied with it.  Enjoy.

11.5 Draft of Public Argument

Here is the link to my Project 3 draft.  I know it's late and I won't get credit, but I wanted to upload it anyway.  If anyone wants to comment, they can.  As I'll be trying to do a video, the draft is in the form of a screenplay.

12.4 Reflection on Project 3 Draft

I reviewed Felicia and Andrew's projects. 

1. The purpose of my project is to convince people that uncanny valley shouldn't be taken too seriously since it has no real evidence.  I haven't actually posted my draft yet since I'm not done with it, but I feel it fulfills that fairly well.
2. After reviewing other people's articles, I do want to focus more on my opposing groups as I want to convert them to my line of thinking.  After I publish my draft, I'll go back in and add more of their viewpoints.
3. I'm revising for my opposition groups.  Before I felt I was preaching to the choir as I wasn't really addressing their points.  I'll reach out to them more.
4. How will aspects change?
1. Length will probably increase to account for other views.
2. Format will still likely be a video.  I've worked in video and I feel it supports my arguments well.
3. Appearance will probably involve a lot of graphics and visuals to show examples.
4. Conclusion will change.  I'll probably side more with my opposition group than I planned.
5. Structure will likely stay the same.  It was mostly informative with some attempts at humor periodically.
6. I will try and get in depth.  All of my sources are published research and I should get pretty explanatory.

12.2 Punctuation, Part 1

Topic 1: The comma.  Especially unnecessary commas.  It's a bad habit of mine to put a comma there when I don't know whether or not it needs one.  Mildly parenthetical ones are an issue for me.

Topic 2: The semicolon.  I almost never know when to use a semicolon.  I would usually avoid using them at all times.  Knowing now that the two parts must be independent clauses now really helps me.

Topic 3: The quotation marks.  I never knew how to do quotes inside of quotes.  I would always just use more quotes.  Using single quotes was nice to know.

Topic 4: I just learned there's a difference between hyphens and dashes.  I've always used hyphens as dashes.  This is new to me.

11.4 Paraphrasing a Source

Original Source:

Nowadays, industrial robots are increasingly recognized as the driving force behind reductions in factory personnel. However, as is well known, these robots just extend, contract, and rotate their arms; without faces or legs, they do not look human. Their design policy is clearly based on functionality. From this standpoint, the robots must perform functions similar to those of human factory workers, but whether they look similar does not matter. Thus, given their lack of resemblance to human beings, in general, people hardly feel any affinity for them. (Note: However, industrial robots are considerably closer in appearance to humans than general machinery, especially in their arms.) If we plot the industrial robot on a graph of affinity versus human likeness, it lies near the origin in Figure 1.

In contrast, a toy robot's designer may focus more on the robot's appearance than its functions. Consequently, despite its being a sturdy mechanical figure, the robot will start to have a roughly human-looking external form with a face, two arms, two legs, and a torso. Children seem to feel deeply attached to these toy robots. Hence, the toy robot is shown more than halfway up the first hill in Figure 1.

Paraphrased:

In factories, machines and robots are the leading cause of employment reductions.  Although these machines are replacing humans, they do not look human.  They exist to perform certain jobs and aesthetics do not play into their designs.  Although they perform functions similar to that of a human worker, we do not have any emotional response to them.  This would have them located far to the left of the uncanny valley.

Toys, on the other hand, are often designed with the intention of triggering an emotional response.  Despite a toy robot being mechanical inside, they have human-like features which children will respond to.  This places them further up the graph, but still not triggering an uncanny response.

11.3 Outlining My Public Argument

Introducing

• Start by defining the uncanny valley
• State how whether the theory is believed or not defines whether animators and roboticists even attempt to create human analogues.
• Show how the uncanny valley shapes our views on media.
• If the uncanny valley is not true, but believed, it prevents people from investigating techniques in creating realistic human analogues.
• Problem: The uncanny valley is accepted by people in the industry despite no empirical data showing its veracity.

Supporting Paragraphs

•  Supporting arguments against the valley: The idea was never tested before being accepted.  Different experiments are getting different results.  Not all human analogues create an uncanny response.
• Criticisms: The valley does explain a documented behavior: people's seeming aversion towards near-lifelike human analogues.  Certain criticisms could still fit in the uncanny model. 
• Point #1: The theory was never tested (rebuttal: Mori never intended it do be a definitive explanation).
• Point #2: Research shows an uncanny response based more on conflict of realistic and unrealistic features, less on how close to real it is (rebuttal: this may be the basis of the valley in general, features that aren't quite 'human').
• Point #3: Research shows actual humans don't get quite the same emotional response as some not-human figures (rebuttal: The valley may be a rough approximation and may vary example to example).
• Point #1: Despite its popularity and near universal acceptation, especially since the rise of CGI films, the theory was never actually tested.
• Point #2: Another study done by [source] shows that the uncanny valley may exist, but is not based simply on how 'close' something appears to be human.  The effect may be caused by a conflict of realistic features, such as expressions or hair, and unrealistic features, such as plasticy skin or unnatural movements.
• Point #3: Another problem relates to the original graph itself.  The graph shows a standard increasing line of emotional response based on how close to human something is, sans the titular valley.  However experiments done by [source] show that real, actual humans don't get quite the same emotional response some of the less realistic examples further down the graph.
• Point #1 Evidence: "However, the validity of the uncanny valley has not been confirmed with psychological evidence. Thus it is uncertain whether the uncanny valley actually emerges at certain realism levels." - (Seyama, Nagayama)
• Point #2 Evidence: "These results suggest that to have an almost perfectly realistic human appearance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the uncanny valley. The uncanny valley emerges only when there is also an abnormal feature." - (Seyama, Nagayama)
• Point #3 Evidence: "Interestingly, the most liked anthropomorphism levels were all robots: toy robots and humanoids.  They were even preferred over real humans." - (Bartneck, et. al.)
• Outline
• Introduction
• Define the valley and provide examples.
• Brief history involving the valley.
• Explain the conflict
• Point #1
• The uncanny valley is an accepted but unproven hypothesis.
• Data showing the unverified nature of the theory
• Defense: The theory is just a hypothesis and explains an observed phenomenon
• Point #2
• The uncanny valley may exist, but is not based on 'closeness' to humans, but on abnormal features.
• Cite data showing study
• Defense: The data may prove the valley.  Perhaps the valley is made of these imperfections. 
• Point #3
• Real humans aren't rated as highly as some humanoid robots or toys.
• Show data conflicting humans with humanoid robots.
• Defense: The original model is just a hypothesis.  The real model would have some perfecting to do.
• Conclusion
• Sum up what the theory means
• Sum up what all the evidence is
• Conclusion: The uncanny valley is probably true on some level.  The real model is probably more nuanced that the hypothesized one.

Concluding Strategies

• Call to action: Until we have a clear cut empirically backed model of the uncanny valley, I wouldn't worry too much about whether you venture into it.  Go ahead and try to make creepy robots.
• Negative consequences: If you avoid the valley for fear of alienating people, you risk setting back robotics and animation potential years of progress.
• Positive consequences: If we attempt to push the boundaries of human realism, maybe we can one day cross the uncanny valley, making this whole scenario a non-issue.
• Common ground: Everyone agrees there is some sort of uncanny response.  It's more of the specific model and whether its a big issue that's debated.
• Future of the Debate: Research will probably give us a more accurate model.  The debate will turn to whether we should try and push the valley or not.

10.7 Considering Types

A refutation argument may be the best format, since I'm tackling the validity of the theory.  A position argument wouldn't work as there's no 'pros and cons', but merely that it's either correct or not.  It's not really solving a problem, so a casual argument wouldn't work.  An evaluative argument may work, as I am discussing the effectiveness of the theory.  Proposal arguments may work, but I'm still not really trying to solve a problem.

10.6 My Rhetorical Action Plan

Audience

• Knowledge: If any animators or robotics enthusiasts are reading, they likely know of the uncanny valley and statistically accept it.  A general audience may or may not know of it.  I would need to introduce the topic either way.
• Values: Most of the audience would be scientifically oriented and hold values related to that.  My paper doesn't contain any polarizing or divisive issues, so I don't need to worry about offending anyone (probably).
•  Standards of Argument: The audience is potentially experts in technology and science, so published scientific research is essential.  Translation is important for a general audience, but most of the people affected would understand.
• Visual Elements: The paper is about the uncanny valley, so images of robots that are supposed to illicit an uncanny response are essential.
• Purpose: I'm intending to change peoples' perspectives on how, why or if the uncanny valley is valid.  It should motivate them through concise arguments and research.

Genre

• I'll likely choose a video as my genre for this project.  The topic is visual in nature and my audience is technologically adept.  A video may be the best way to reach them.
• Pathos will likely be used more in a video than in a writing as it's more visual and must engage the audience.  The scientific nature of the topic requires above average logos to be used.
• Video clips, images and graphics will be used frequently, as the intended genre is video.
• It'll probably be informal as the format has the potential to reach people other than my intended audience and I would want it to engage them.

Responses/Actions:

• Potential positives: acceptance of new theories or consideration at least.  Negatives: rejection of new theories, reluctance to abandon current theory, cling to intuition of current theory.
• The most important are addressing the validity of the current theory.
• Explain current theory > Provide evidence for current theory > Explain issues with current theory > Provide alternative theories > Conclude argument.

10.5 Analyzing Context

1. Interestingly, among popular culture, the uncanny valley is almost unanimously accepted.  It's only among experts and researchers in the field that there's any doubt.  So it's a handful of researchers vs. popular culture.
2. The uncanny valley seems very intuitive to most people.  Major contention could come from people who instinctively agree with the theory.  There could also be contention from people who would want a replacement theory to explain the behavior the uncanny valley explains.
3. There does appear to be some uncanny reaction from near-realistic humanoids.  Contention would stem from explaining that reaction, but not necessarily that the reaction exists.
4. Any ideological differences may stem from viewpoints towards robotics.  Pessimists may view robots negatively anyway, so an uncanny response may just reflect that.  It may just boil down to varying pessimism towards technology in general.
5. People against the valley simply ask for revision of how realism is approached during design of robotics and graphics.  People for the valley are just supporting the current view of robotics, but likely have no call to arms amongst themselves.
6. The perspectives of the research done will help my argument the most.  Most research done has contested the idea, with little research supporting it.
7. Common intuition and the simplicity of the uncanny valley are probably the hardest points to contest.  The valley seems self-explanatory and is hard to argue against.

10. 4 Analyzing Purpose

1. I want my readers to rethink how and why they feel so strongly about how robots and CGI look.  I want them to rethink about whether they feel the uncanny valley is a valid or acceptable theory on how perception of robotics is seen.
2. Likely reactions include doubt of my findings due to personal opinions, cognitive dissonance based on a conflict of personal beliefs with new findings, or realization or acceptance of different theories.  Unlikely responses would include overly emotional reactions like rage or depression on the findings.
3. A plausible effect of thinking why they feel strongly about robots or CGI could be denial or cognitive dissonance.  The effect of questioning the validity of the valley could be realization or cognitive dissonance.
4. The most likely group to be affected would be animators or roboticists.  As these groups are the ones most likely to benefit from this research, they will be the ones this paper will be directed towards.  

10.3 Learning for Project #3

Chapter 17 of Writing Public Lives was good information.  The hardest part of crafting the paper is how to structure it and what genre to use.  Page 414 shows types of public arguments to use and 412 shows how to develop an action plan.  This was the most helpful of the readings for the week.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

[1] Mori, Masahiro, Karl F. MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. "The uncanny valley [from the field]." Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE 19.2 (2012): 98-100.

This article is a translation of the original 1970s article by Masahiro Mori that coined the phrase 'uncanny valley'.  This source is referenced by every other source on here and is the basis of the entire discussion, so I've added it as one of my sources.

[2] Hanson, David, et al. "Upending the uncanny valley." Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. Vol. 20. No. 4. Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999, 2005.

This article discusses whether machines that are human-like and 'uncanny' differ from other portrayals of humanity such as paintings and sculptures.  Robotics are just another representation of humanity and don't differ from other representations.

[3] Brenton, Harry, et al. "The uncanny valley: does it exist." Proceedings of conference of human computer interaction, workshop on human animated character interaction. 2005.

This article mentions the lack of research on the topic, and proposes different hypotheses on how the valley could operate.  This plays into the question of how and why the valley exists.

[4] Bartneck, Christoph, et al. "Is the uncanny valley an uncanny cliff?." Robot and Human interactive Communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007. The 16th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2007.

This was a study that tried to replicate the results expected from the valley, but found the effect to be more like that of a cliff.  Real humans were always rated less than dolls or depictions.  This also plays into the unsupported theory of the valley.

[5] Seyama, Jun'ichiro, and Ruth S. Nagayama. "The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 16.4 (2007): 337-351.

This article is a study of the uncanny valley that comes to the conclusion that only abnormal features trigger the uncanny valley, and simply being almost lifelike isn't enough of a qualifier.  This helps debunk the idea that the valley simply operates on a scale of how lifelike something is.

9.5 Narrowing My Focus

What aspect of human features is creating the most uncanny responses?

What is preventing fully realistic human analogues?

How do skeptics plan to disprove the idea?

---

The three questions above are the most interesting for me to research.  I would focus on what aspects of humanity seems difficult to replicate perfectly along with how skeptics plan to address the theory (along with what they would replace it with).

9.4 Questions About Controversy

Here are a series of questions regarding the uncanny valley:

WHO:

1. Who feels the most bothered about the valley?
2. Who is claiming the valley doesn't exist?
3. Who is claiming the valley does exist?
4. Who popularized the idea?
5. Who has the most to benefit from crossing the valley?

WHAT:

1. What aspect of human features is creating the most uncanny responses?
2. What technologies are emerging that is narrowing on the valley?
3. What is preventing fully realistic human analogues?
4. What are the applications of perfect human substitutes?
5. What is the ratio of people who believe vs. don't believe?

WHEN:

1. When did the valley become popular?
2. When did the valley become an issue in the industry?
3. When do we expect the issue to no longer affect us?
4. When do we expect to first cross the valley?
5. When did people start to doubt the valley?

WHERE:

1. Where did the term originate from?
2. Where is the problem a bigger issue: robotics or animation?
3. Where is research being done?
4. Where is a solution likely to originate from?
5. Where will post-valley humanoids be utilized first?

HOW:

1. How did the concept become popular despite no empirical data?
2. How did the originator of the idea come about his hypothesis?
3. How do we expect we'll overcome this dilemma?
4. How do skeptics plan to disprove the idea?
5. How do animators/roboticists plan to circumvent the valley?

9.3. Final Submission and Reflection on Project 2

A Rhetorical Analysis of “The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis”

Jon Thomas

Tsuno, Yoshikazu via PopularMechanics.com

Imagine a future where realistic computer graphics have replaced all actors.  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen films such as the Terminator, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day humanoid robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This disgust towards near-realistic humanoids, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley.

While the uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or computerized characters 'creepy', there is some debate about whether the theory is even true.  Erik Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not be the titular valley that we imagine it to be.  This paper will explore the validity of one of robotics' most notorious public-relation dilemmas.

The article [1] begins with a brief summary on what the uncanny valley is.  In the 1970s, roboticist Masahiro Mori, “proposed that a robot that's too human-like can veer into unsettling territory, tripping the same psychological alarms associated with a dead or unhealthy human.” [1] One of Sofge’s strong points throughout his article is his citations and references to the comments and research of professionals in the field.  Some of his language, namely describing these unsettling robots with terms such as “Shuffling and convulsing”, brings up images of the sick or even dead, replicating the experience such a robot should give you.  Sofge gains our attention by combining an emotional and logical approach..  It’s here that Sofge drops his major revelation: that the uncanny valley is a scientifically unfounded hypothesis.

Sofge reveals to the reader that no one has ever seriously tested the idea.  Even the founder of the idea stated, "While I introduced the notion of the Uncanny Valley, I have not examined it closely so far." [1]  What research has been done has concluded that the valley may be broken into smaller theories.  Researcher Karl MacDorman states the valley may be linked to inconsistencies and not necessarily the closeness to humans.  “Realistic skin texture, but at the same time cartoonish eyes”[1] could create the disconnect.  Research also shows gender could be related, with women being more accepting of uncanny humanoids than men.  This whole section of the article relies on heavy citations and research, presenting a very logical and scientific approach.  This would be relatable to the robotics enthusiasts who would be reading.

From here on out, issues start to arise in the article.  Sofge states how when shown these realistic robots in person, people tend to be very accepting of them, rejecting any ‘uncanny valley’ response you would expect.  This tends to raise more questions than it answers.  Why do people react negatively to uncanny humanoids online and in film, but seem accepting of them in person?  What would be an explanation of that?  Could it be due to people at robotics expos being interested in the technology and are able to see ‘past’ the uncanny?  Could it be the difference of accepting it as a robot versus having to accept it as a human analogue?  Just because the people seeing it in person didn’t have the same snarky response as YouTube commentators doesn’t mean the YouTube commentators are wrong.  The situation could be reversed as, “why do people who see my robots online react negatively compared to those who see them in person?”  It could simply be the difference between seeing a robot that has humanistic traits, as robotics enthusiasts may do, and a human with robotic traits, as YouTube commentators may do.

If the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it bodes well for our previously mentioned actor-less and robot filled future.  Our feelings of disgust may be based on more than just the 'closeness' of the robot in question.  Erik Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the idea was never tested before being presented and the little research that has been done hasn’t recreated the dip that should be there.  But while this hypothesis isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the idea.  All that can is a collection of research and data that has yet to happen.

---

Sources

[1] Sofge, Erik. (2010 Jan 20). The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis. [Online].  Available: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a5001/4343054/ 

Reflection
---

1. My introduction and conclusion changed a lot from one draft to another.  I added in some images and citations, but the bulk of the body was similar.  I did listen to a lot of the advice from my classmates.

2. My thesis is mostly the same, but I did shorten and streamline the introduction to it.  A lot of people seemed confused on what the thesis was, so I tried to address that.

3. Mostly commentary from peers.  I never would have noticed the phrasing of the intro if it hadn't been pointed out.

4. Difficulty recognizing the thesis could confuse the audience on what my point was.  Inability to realize the purpose could hurt credibility by just not knowing what you're trying to say.

5. If the audience can grasp my thesis, then they'll have a better understanding of where my paper is going.  It can lose me my audience if they can't focus on the point of your article right away.

6.  I really tried to streamline the intro most of all.  I tried to make it less wordy and flow better into my thesis.

7. It should allow them to flow into the body of the article better.  That appeared to be most people's issue with it.

8. For the most part, no.  I briefly considered scrapping my intro and thesis and starting from scratch, but decided against it.  I liked my format and wanted to stay with it.

9. By reflecting, I'm forced to examine my writing, think about and defend what I did.  Without it, I'd probably write on autopilot and not think about what I was doing.

8.5 Revised Conclusion

I added an intro to the conclusion to try and tie it back to the intro of the paper.  This mirrors the 'circle back' example featured in the book.  I tried to remove uses of the word 'theory' as it doesn't fit the scientific definition of the term.

 Old conclusion:

In conclusion, Eric Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the theory was never tested before being presented and what little research has been done hasn’t recreated the dip the theory states should be there.  But while the theory isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  The only way to disprove the valley is to do research showing the model doesn’t hold up.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the theory.

New Conclusion:
 

If the uncanny valley doesn't exist, it bodes well for our previously mentioned actor-less and robot filled future.  Our feelings of disgust may be based on more than just the 'closeness' of the robot in question.  Eric Sofge presents a good reason to doubt the uncanny valley: the idea was never tested before being presented and the little research that has been done hasn’t recreated the dip that should be there.  But while this hypothesis isn’t proven, using personal experiences to cast doubt isn’t sufficient to argue against it.  How people react to robot expos will never prove or disprove the idea.  All that can is a collection of research and data that has yet to happen.

8.4 Revised Introduction

I more or less already opened with a rhetorical question (bullet point 4 under tip number 1).  I used this same format with the revised opening, but made some changes.  I tried to shorten the overall paragraph a bit and put more explanation into the uncanny valley.  Since people commented on explaining the acronym of CGI, I instead opted to remove it altogether as it wasn't important to the overall paper.  I added the final sentence, using 'it will explore', as I felt an explicit forecast better suited the scientific nature of the article.  The thesis statement is actually in the second paragraph of the introduction, which I still tried to streamline.

Old intro:

Imagine a future where films no longer use real actors, but rather fully CGI characters that can be animated into realistic situations?  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, can mimic our very motions, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen The Matrix and Terminator movies, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day human-like robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley.

The uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy'.  But what if the theory was simply not true?  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not have the titular valley that we imagine it to.

New intro:

Imagine a future where realistic computer graphics have replaced all actors.  Imagine robots that are designed to look just like us, walking around and interacting with us.  Does this idea make you uneasy?  Maybe it’s because you’ve seen films such as the Terminator, and know what super-smart AI is capable of.  Or maybe it’s because you’ve seen some modern day humanoid robots and, well, they’re kind of creepy.  This disgust towards near-realistic humanoids, according to the popular culture surrounding robotics, is the uncanny valley. 

While the uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy', there is some debate about whether the theory is even true.  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not be the titular valley that we imagine it to.  This paper will explore the validity of one of robotics' most notorious public-relations dilemmas.

8. 2 Reflection on Project 2 Draft

For my peer reviews, I reviewed Deb and Andrew's papers.  Both were scientific articles which mostly focused on logic and reasoning to establish their credibility rather than any emotion.  Both utilized their in-text citations and quotations very well, and I feel I need to go back and revise my article to these higher standards.

7.5 Draft of P2 Rhetorical Analysis

Here is a link to my draft.  I got it in late, but if anyone could review it, that would help.  I have no real things I'm looking for, so just tell if if it works.  Thank you.

7.5 Project 2 Outline

The introduction

Provide quick summary of the claim the article is refuting (the uncanny valley).

The thesis (adapted or revised from one of your draft theses)

Use Thesis #3 from thesis drafts.

The body paragraphs

The article is broken into three sections, so I’ll look at each section at its own paragraph.  Paragraph 1 is the summary.  Paragraph 2 would be the history of the theory.  Paragraph 3 would be his counter-evidence.

Your analytical claims

I agree with most of his points in the first sections.  I’ll go over his methods, but have nothing much to argue or debate against.  In section 3 is where his argument falls short and that’s where I’ll likely spend most of my time analyzing what his says.

The support for each claim

The first two sections are all logical, and I’ll point out where he provides his logic and reasoning behind his claims.  Paragraph 3 shifts to more evidence from personal experience, which is a break from his previous form.  I’ll likely point out his fallacies in that area.

The conclusion

Sofge makes a good point in why we shouldn’t accept the uncanny valley, as it’s not proven by any metric.  I don’t agree with some of his evidence against the theory, as it boils down to ‘I saw some people who liked these robots other called creepy’.

7.4 Draft Thesis Statements

Thesis Statement #1

The Uncanny Valley is an oft-cited theory in robotics and animation, explaining our apparent disgust with not quite 'real enough' human analogues.  However, according to research done by Popular Mechanics writer Erik Sofge, the uncanny valley may not exist at all.

Thesis Statement #2

Erik Sofge of Popular mechanics tackles a major theory in the fields of robotics and animation: the uncanny valley.  Through a logical breakdown using expert opinions and research, Sofge reveals that the uncanny valley may not be the intuitive model we believe to to be.


Thesis Statement #3

The uncanny valley is an almost universally accepted model for why we find certain robots or CGI characters 'creepy'.  Eric Sofge of Popular Mechanics uses a primarily logic-based argument, supported by facts and research, to show the uncanny valley may not have the titular valley we imagine it to.

---

This project shouldn't be too complicated for this article.  The bulk of the article is interviews with experts in the field and references to research that's been done.  The one point where the article struggles is where the author uses a personal experience, which clashes with a previous focus on expert opinion.  Overall, I don't think I should struggle too badly with this project.

7.3 Analyzing My Audience for Project 2

Who am I writing for? What are the Audiences beliefs and assumptions?

My primary audience would be my fellow classmates, but I will likely write for an audience that would be in this field or related to this field.  Most audiences' view towards the uncanny valley (those who know about it at least) would be that it's a valid and recognized theory (as it does seem fairly intuitive).  Therefore my paper would geared to an audience that has the opposite view of what this paper presents.

What position might they take on this issue?  How will I need to respond to this position?

As stated above, they likely already subscribe to the uncanny valley.  My first task would be to get them to doubt the validity of the theory.  My best bet would be to present the lack of scientific data on the theory, and hope that a scientific/technology based audience would accept that.

What will they want to know?

They will want to see what research there is on the uncanny valley.  Since the theory is somewhat intuitive, the audience will need to see/hear all arguments against it to prove the point.

How might they react to my argument?

Anyone logically minded might accept the argument and doubt the validity of the theory.  More emotionally minded people might get defensive of the theory and not accept the argument.

How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

I'll have to approach it logically and scientifically, as that's how the original article and audience were.  Since the argument boils down to 'it's really not proven', I'm not sure if there's much of an emotional angle to go at.

Are there any specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

I need to relate all of the original sources the article used for its argument, as 'proof' is my best tool.  My best bet would be to focus on the references and research to prove my point.

7.2 Cluster of The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

For my cluster, I broke up the argument into Message, Author and Audience.  I broke down the major points of the article under message, described the likely readers under Audience, and discussed the history/style of the author under author.

6.7 Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

Referencing credible sources, such as Masahiro Mori (who coined the phrase uncanny valley). Personal stories (such as referencing their research for another article).

How and why would the author use these strategies?

The author is attempting to establish credibility, so that their opinion on the matter will be seen as valid by the audience.

How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author’s credibility and character?

They likely have the effect of establishing the author's knowledge of the topic. By citing sources and establishing their method, the audience accepts the author's word.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The author's character is established, so the message should be accepted by the audience.

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact his or her credibility?

The author does appear to stay relatively unbiased throughout the article. While he does take a stance on the issue, his points are backed by references in the field of robotics.

Appeals to Emotion

Which items on the bulleted list of strategies on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

Language used to describe the bottom of the valley, such as, "shuffling and convulsing", and, "glassy and corpse-like." The use of such language isn't so much inspiring disgust as it is humor.

What emotional response is the author attempting to create?

The use of humor also helps to describe the emotions people usually experience in regards to 'creepy' robots or CGI. The makes the author seem empathetic to the audience, even though he'll go on to argue against the uncanny valley.

What is the actual result?

The small amount of humor doesn't do much for the author's argument, but does help in connecting with the audience. It would help set up the audience for more in depth arguments later in the text.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

Popular Mechanics, while scientific in content, is still a magazine read for entertainment. The article does need some humor to help engage the audience. I would say it's effective.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?

Humor won't improve the logic of the text, but can help engage the audience. The author does great on logic throughout the text, so the humor towards the beginning helps.

Appeals to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list of appeals on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

Expert opinions, organization of ideas, statistics, and referencing studies/research.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The authors primary strategy is to appeal to logic, which makes sense seeing as how it's a scientific publication. While there is personal experience to assist, the bulk of the argument is in the data and research.

What is the actual result?

The author succeeds in conveying the article logically, which is good since it's a scientific article.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

This strategy is perfect for the publication. The best way to convey a point to an audience of a scientific publication is with a scientific approach. It would be the best method out of the three to do so.

Which items on the list of logical fallacies on pages 185-6 can you recognize in your text?

The only one I thought I saw was the "Either...or" fallacy. The author mentions that a robot that got creepy remarks on YouTube didn't get any negative response in person. This doesn't mean that the visitors weren't experiencing the uncanny valley, as they could have been acting polite, or their disgust was outweighed by their interest in robotics.

What effect does the use of these logical fallacies have on the reader?

The fallacy is probably unnoticed by the bulk of readers. If the fallacy is noticed, it could hurt the character of the author.

6.6 Analyzing Message in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

Out of all the bullet points on page 181, which seem most relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why?

The most obvious is "What contemporary events may have shaped the author's views and the audience's responses?"  The most obvious contemporary event would be the advent of CGI in the past 25 years.  The use of CGI to create human-like creatures that don't quite look right will bring up the topic of the uncanny valley.

Which bullet points to not seem relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why not?

Probably "What are the physical and material surroundings of the event or text?"  The article discusses the robotics industry in general, and CGI in film isn't localized to one location.  Whether or not the uncanny valley is valid isn't dependent on where the magazine is published or where the industry is located.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

I would say there isn't much in terms of nuance, as the author says what he wants to say.  If there was any message to take away, it would be that theories should be supported by evidence before believed, and that human acceptance of robots hinges on more than how creepy they look.

6.5 Analyzing My Own Assumptions

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

Most people in our society (that know of the uncanny valley) do seem to believe in it at least in some regard.  The belief in the theory is supported by no real studies being pushed that disprove it, and the theory does appear intuitive (almost realistic robots do appear creepy).

2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

Society may be split on its acceptance of robotics in general.  A lot of people may have an unfavorable view of robots, and any robot, no matter how realistic or unrealistic, will be viewed unfavorably.  Others may be fascinated by robots, and any robot, no matter how creepy, will be viewed favorably.  There likely is not a clear cut 'view' that all of society shares on the topic.

3. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values,beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?

The culture of article is more scientific than normal society would be.  So while normal culture might buy into the uncanny valley because, "yeah, Polar Express was creepy", the scientific community would argue that no matter how intuitive the theory seems, they can't accept it until it has evidence supporting it.

They would agree in that the creepiness of some robots is observed, but it's just the uncanny valley model that is disputed.

4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

The article might read differently if written 10, 20 or 100 years in the future.  In this time frame, the line between realism and CGI would be thinner, and more and more CGI would be passed off as the real thing.  It's possible in this time that we will have 'crossed' the uncanny valley, and it may be a non-issue anymore.  It's also possible that the uncanny valley could have been disproved in this time, and replaced with a more accurate model.

6.4 Analyzing Audience in The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

The article could be said to have both a primary and secondary audience.  The primary audience would be those interested in robotics or animation, who are reading the article because it mentions a topic that interests them.  The secondary audience would be the rest of the demographic that would read Popular Mechanics, mainly those with at least a passive interest in science and engineering.  As the article deals with a specific theory of a specific industry, it's definitely not a 'general audiences' piece.  The article is directed at people with an at least 'passive' interest in robotics.

6.2 Cultural Analysis of The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis

I've decided to do my analysis on this article by Popular Science, called The Truth about Robotics and the Uncanny Valley.  There are cultural values represents the science and tech industry with phrases such as "robotics", "theory", "study", and "algorithms", showing a respect for scientific process and development.  Cultural references include references to film (such as the Polar Express), robotics companies, robotics experts, YouTube video comments, and other staples of the technology and robotics industries.

The author uses the scientific method, research and a lot of scientific terminology to discuss the plausibility and validity of the uncanny valley.

5.8 Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

	Author/speaker	Audience	Context
Source 1	SimplyMaya.  SimplyMaya is a website that teaches the computer program Maya, a popular 3D modeling and animation program.  Due to their involvement in the industry, they are likely to have a valid opinion on the topic.	SimplyMaya's audience would be those involved or interested in computer animation.  It would either be students or hobbyists interested in Maya.	The uncanny valley is a huge hurdle for animation companies to overcome.  SimplyMaya, involved in the education of 3D modeling, would have an interest in educating its readers on the number one hurdle that animation companies have yet to overcome.
Source 2	Frank E. Pollick, professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Glasgow.  As a professor of psychology, Pollick could have a lot to say about the "why" of the uncanny valley.	Published as an article, Pollick's paper would be aimed towards his peers in psychology.  The paper likely assumes a background in psychology when reading.	As the uncanny valley deals with human acceptance of near-human objects, its interest to psychology is obvious.  Since the uncanny valley is simply a hypothesis, and at the time of this writing not proven, a scientific insight to it seems as though it could be rewarding.
Source 3	Popular Mechanics is a popular science and technology-based publication, frequently dealing with concepts like robotics and animation.  They would sit in an position to discuss the sciences of the uncanny valley.	Readers of Popular Mechanics may not be scientists or engineers, but they would have an interest in science and technology.  The article is not aimed at the academic level, but likely assumes the reader has some background in science or technology.	The article actually delves into the fact that the uncanny valley is not scientifically supported.  It's never been tested or validated with any empirical evidence.  This would have strong implications on popular Mechanics reader base, many of whom likely base some of their design choices around the uncanny valley.