Robots – Our Future Partners?!

A Sociologist’s View from a German and Japanese Perspective

Miriam J.S. Leis Doctoral Thesis

Interdisciplinary approach• Sociology• Cultural Studies• AI-Theory• Philosophy/Phenomenology

Privately funded research project within broader context• “Project2050” (social and technology studies / ELSA / future studies / philosophy / politics / humanism)

Analysis of socio-technological developments (especially NBIC)and how they may influence the state of humankind in the future

Duration of dissertation project:• April 2003 – April 2005

Methodology• Literature research / desktop research / film reviews• Analysis of robotics (research) projects (technical, social, economic) • Observations / field studies• Attendance of conferences and exhibitions• Interviews / expert discussions• Small surveys• Theory review (sociology / AI / philosophy)• Focus on non-industrial robots

Preparation• Attending lectures in informatics, psychology, philosophy, biology • Contacting people from research, industry and public institutons

Countries covered:• Japan• Germany

Why Japan vs. Germany?

• both “engineering” countries (e.g. automobiles, machine tools, industrial robots)• cultural similarities and dissimilarities• knowledge about robotics projects in both countries• personal relation to both countries (e.g. possibility of unlimited stay)

Why is Japan the “Robot Kingdom” and not Germany?

Economic reasons in Japan (“future automobile industry”) Less expectations of Japanese consumers makes introduction easier (entertainment factor) German “pragmatism” has hindering factor for early introduction of new technologies with limited capabilities Japanese ability to integrate fun & entertainment factor and openness to playful approaches to novelties Japanese self-promotion factor (“Cherry Blossom Effect”) Germany even seems to have better technology and product functionality

Structure

Part I:

History of automata and robots

• Artificial entities in European and Japanese literature and fiction (mythology, religion, SciFi/animé)• History of automata and robots in Japan and Germany • Industrialization in Europe and Japan

Christianity as reason for rather negative perception aboutartificial entities (robots, “hybrid entities”, biotechnology)

Japanese shinto considers dolls and robots as entities with souls but no necessary explanation for rather positive perception

Religious aspects should not be overestimated in regard to robotics economic and other socio-cultural factors seem more relevant

Structure

Part II:

(MA)CHI(N)EQuestions about the difference between man and machine

• Mechanistic view about mankind? (La Mettrie, Minsky, Moravec)• Actor Network Theory and artifacts in social analysis• The limitations of “Turing Tests” (part I)• Theory of mind / problem with consciousness / ‘Mind Uploading’• Cyborgs• Philosophy of transhumanism

The difference between human and machine may be rather gradual than fundamental

New scientific discoveries and technologies raise new questions about the definition of “human”

Human (hypothet.) humanoid Industrial PC doll metal Fyborg Android Robot robot Cyborg AL/AGI

„strong AI“ „weak AI“ no AI

human artifact

classical concept

proposed future concept

Structure

Part III (Main Part):

Comparison Japan Germany• Robot projects / future plannings / promotion of robot technology• Social perception• Economic aspects

German robot technology seems even more advanced andpragmatic than Japanese one

Japanese (and East Asia) prefers humanoid / animoid forms

Japan displays a more playful approach towards robots and entertainment stands more in focus

The Japanese government greatly promotes robot technology anda positive perception by the general public (out of economic reasons)

Japan

Germany

Structure

Part IV:

Social sciences and robotics• Robotics and theory of (inter)action (Handlungstheorie) can robots (inter)act? Can robots be part of social theory? can robots participate in culture? • Culture and programming• Human perception and cultural factors• Communication and “E-motions”• “Robot phenomenology” and cognitive/neuro sciences• The problem with Turing Tests II

The “human centric” attitude of social sciences makes it by defaultdifficult to integrate non-humans in social analysis

In the future the consideration of non-humans in society will become increasingly relevant (communication, law)

doubling of body strength

perception beyondnatural possibilities

instant informationaccessRFID-Chip, AR, BAN

neuronal control of machines

optimisedimmune system

modified neuro-functions

modified biochemistry

constantbiomonitoring

Human Version 1.3 (2007)Human Version 1.3 (2007)

Year of birth: 1976Age : 30Stat. Life Exp.: 93 years

Survival rate in case ofsevere injury: 96.0%(if instant medical response)*

Ubiquitous Information Access Optimized Immune System Modified Biochemistry Doubled body strength Infrared Perception Constant Biomonitoring Biohybrid Functions RFID Chip

* based on military statistics

reversable bodymodification

enhanced cognitivecapabilities andperception

engineered psychology

bioartificialcell repair

Human Version 2.0 (2050)Human Version 2.0 (2050)

Year of birth: 1976Age : 74Stat. Life Exp.: 150 years

Survival rate in case ofsevere injury: 99.8%(if instant medical response)

Artificial Brain Parts/BCI Engineered Biochemistry (nanobiotech/some genetics) Artificial Cell Repair/reversal of aging effects Enhanced cognition and sensory perception through neuroengineering/cybernetics Engineered psychology Body-integrated computing

artificial brain parts/BCI

engineeredbiofunctions

body-integrated IT & computing system

age-effect reversal

most of the technologywill be invisible

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then for all practical purposes it’s a duck

Thank You for Your Attention!