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.
No comments:
Post a Comment