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.
Where is your reflection?
ReplyDelete