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?