Should Home Robot Be Like a Person?

Earlier this year, Marc Raibert of MIT and Jeff Koechlin of Carnegie-Mellon designed a simple robot that consisted of very little more than a pair of legs and did nothing more than run. They wanted to see how fast they could make it go. By adjusting the length and stiffness of the legs, they could make it run at a rate of 12.8 m.p.h.

That is interesting as a study of the mechanics of running, but the question is, do we want a robot to have legs? In fact, do we want a robot to look human?

The question arises if we think of the motion picture “Star Wars” and the two robots that were so important a part of the action. One of them (C3PO) looked quite human, human enough to give us the impression of a fussy, even prissy person. The other (R2D2) looked more like a fire hydrant than anything else, but seemed very lovable, just the same.

Now then, which is the shape of the future for robots? Are they to be human in form or not?

As long as robots are only required to perform highly specialized functions on an assembly line, it makes sense to have them highly specialized. They need be nothing more than computerized arms, for instance, performing the same function over and over forever.

But suppose we are thinking of a home robot, a personal robot, a robot that serves us in a variety of ways--running the vacuum cleaner, making coffee, cooking dinner, mowing the lawn. In short, what if we are thinking of a computerized mechanical servant?

In that case, there are two chief arguments in favor of the human form, one practical and one psychological.

The practical argument is that the home robot will have to make use of human technology. It will have to use the vacuum cleaners, the ovens, the home devices, generally, that we use. All the devices we use are adjusted to the size and shape of the human body. The controls are placed so that we can reach and handle them by means of the natural movements of our arms and legs. Nothing is (or should be) inconveniently high or low, and nothing should require us to stretch or bend in ways that are painful, ludicrous or impossible.

In order for a robot to make use of the same devices it must be shaped something like us, with the same capacities of movement. Otherwise, we might be forced to set up two systems of technology for the home, one that is convenient for a non-human-form robot and one that is convenient for a human being to use if the robot breaks down. That would surely be wasteful.

Second is the psychological argument. If we’re going to have a mobile device about the house that does things that human beings ordinarily do, then it might make us uncomfortable to have the robot possess a strange and outlandish shape. It might seem like a “monster.” The famous monster portrayed by Boris Karloff in the classic picture “Frankenstein” is a monster precisely because he is made up to look not quite human. If he looked exactly like Clark Gable, the picture would have lost its impact. From that point of view, the more humanlike the better.

What about the argument against making robots in human form?

Well, for one thing, the human shape is the result of 3 1/2 billion years of hit-and-miss evolution and in some ways it is not a very good shape. We are descended from four-legged creatures, and in order to free our forelimbs so they could serve as our indispensable hands, an apelike being about 5 million years ago had to tip itself up and walk vertically instead of horizontally. This is not an easy task. Bears, chimpanzees and others can walk on their hind legs for a time, but clumsily. Only the human being does so with relative stability, and permanently.

The result, however, is that human beings are top-heavy and can easily fall down. We don’t mind because the advantage of possessing hands is worth the occasional “Oops!” But why should we inflict that top heaviness on a robot? Why not two limbs above and four below?

Then, too, the limitations of the materials that made up human beings (and living things generally) do not allow us to do things we would want a robot to do. For instance, although we can turn our heads from side to side and twist our hands and bend our fingers, we can’t turn our head or hand in a complete circle. And we can bend our fingers in only one direction, not the other. Why should robots be limited in the same way, simply to make them seem more like us?

No living creature on Earth in 3 1/2 billion years has been able to evolve wheels as part of its anatomy, but we might well want robots to have wheels instead of legs, or perhaps in addition to legs. The accidents of evolution have forced our brain into an exposed position at the top of the body, but a robot might be more secure with its control mechanism placed differently. We have two eyes looking straight forward for stereoscopic vision, but we might want a robot to have a third eye in back, or eyes on each arm.

In short, we might want robots to be more than human.