ROBOTS – OUR FUTURE PARTNERS!? A Comparison Study Between Germany and Japan
Due to the novelty of the topic “Robots for non-professional use”, my work will be: Rather hypothesis-generating Questions:
- Analysis of theories about human-object-relations , human-computer-relations , “communication theories ”, placement of artifacts (e.g. Actor-Network-Approaches) for the case of robots are robots special?
- Social theories applied on AI / Robotics (e.g. action and communication theories)
- “Robots begin to enter our society”: Analysis of projects, purpose, concepts, dreams & motivations for the creation of “Robots for n-p use” WHY build them? Concept-Differences Germany – Japan? “Postsocial”, “Postbiological”, “Parasocial” machines are regarded as human-like and humans as machines (e.g. cybernetic models)
- What’s behind the (Japanese) idea of “ Partner Robots ” and what does this mean for social sciences? (phenomenon like “ benriya ”, “ primopuel dolls ”, AIBO, Robot- Assisted Therapy (RAT), care for the elderly are also considered)
- Possible explanations for Japan’s image as “Robot Kingdom” – and what’s really behind it (in comparison to Germany) ? Methods: - Personal observations: How robots begin to enter our lives – public events in Germany and Japan – and how they differ? - Robots: toys, entertainers, “pet-substitutes”, helpers, “partners”? - Project analysis: - Some personal interviews with researchers / engineers, museum staff - Analysis of interviews posted in newspapers / in the Internet
- People and Robots - Survey with AIBOwners in Germany and Japan (why do they have decided on buying an AIBO, as what do they regard it) (?) - Online discussions in German AIBO Internet Forum - Discussions with friends, acquaintances, researchers
- Comparison AIBO Germany and Japan: Administration: e.g. “AIBO-Clinic”, Owner’s Registration, AIBOwner’s Homepages in Germany and Japan, “AIBO- Life-Style” Germany and Japan etc. (Online discussions, Internet Forum, own experience)
- Review of literature in the fields of robotics, AI, sociology, psychology and cultural studies, history (of technology) and philosophy / religion Applicability of theories for new situation (explanatory power for observations? )
“Robotology” – as the intersecting set of different disciplines dealing with robotics
Many different disciplines contribute to modern robot research and engineering:
Biology movement mechanisms, ergonomics Engineering Hardware
“embodyment”
Cognitive Science / Neuro-Science / Psychology Computer Science / Informatics AI, data processing mechanisms Software
theories “Socionics” Psychology, Sociology Interaction, Communication, Deployment, “Integration”, Consequences ROBOT
dialogue analysis
Economics Marketing, Deployment
Philosophy, Theology Critique, Comments, Consequences ? One question discussed by Sociologists, Philosophers and “Artificial Life” and “Socionic” Theorists
Can machines (robots) be considered as “acting entities”?
(“Können Maschinen handeln?”)
Due to complexity of the topic, I just jump to the conclusions…
first one needs a robust theory about what is meant by “acting” (e.g. cybernetic models work for humans and machines) Candiscussion in connectionthey to “goals”, have “planning”, knowledge, learning and even “consciousness” makes the problem not necessarily easier…
“von Neumann-type machines” only process (pre)programmed data so one Intentions?should rather speak of a “human’s transferred / simulated action scheme ” Interesting: Artificial Neural NetworksPlanning? (mimicking the architecture of the human brain) EMERGENCE, but the problem is still difficult to resolve on an empirical basis Simulation-Problem, “Turing Test”
If it looks like “acting”, does it necessarilyGoals? really “act”? Maybe one should consider robots just as an attempt to make machines more user-friendly Analysis of further interest:
What’s behind robot-related fears and enthusiasm indicator for social concerns, robot discussion as “eye-opener”? (e.g. in regard to humanism, aging society, change of life-style etc.)
The tendency (especially in Japan) towards the usage of robots for “entertainment” and “companionship” new kind of “solitude-deflection” as it has been already discussed in connection to TV and the Internet PARASOCIAL INTERACTION ? (e.g. study: “Einsamkeit in der Mediengesellschaft ”; Barbara Mettler-v. Meibom (Hg.))
Social Parasocial (unidirectional) Parasocial (bidirect.) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 (future?) Comm. “partner” human Radio / TV Computer / VR “Personal Robot” symmetry user: high user: high user: high user: high entity: high entity: none entity: low (simulation) entity: high (simulation)? Time
…what about Artificial Intelligence?
A Chess-computer is not regarded as “intelligent”, but an ape defeating a Human chess champion would be called extraordinary intelligent…
Since an ex ante definition of “intelligence” is difficult – I would consider the following aspects as relevant in regard to AI and its evaluation:
“AI” is a tool to enable robots
- to autonomously perform in a rather unstructured “every-day” environment - to be controllable in an easy way (i.e. through human-like comm. forms) - to adapt to new situations
USER FRIENDLINESS There has been much discussion about the question: where to plac e “interactive artifacts” like robots, “AI -systems”, agents, avatars etc.?
Such artifacts are created with the (long term) goal to communicate with humans, learn and even simulate emotional expressions… …so where to place them – “somewhere between dead and alive ” ?
Many theories about the placement of artifacts in the “texture of society” from: classical view of “mere tools” (e.g. Weber) symmetric suggestions of “Actor Network Theories” (Function in Network) (e.g. Hans Linde, Steve Woolgar, Michael Callon, John Law, Bruno Latour)
Problem: ASIMO (a robot) on the state visit with P.M. Koizumi It’s function: “Goodwill Ambassador” Accepted as such? Maybe not , because it is not human (“quality” of entity)
…so it may be important to make the analysis in regard to function and “quality”.
“Qualitative Actor -Network -Analysis ”
Robots Entering our Lives
“Robot -Assisted Therapy” (RAT): method used especially in Japan, Sweden and the US.
Used are animal-like “robots” like “Paro” or AIBO in hospitals and care-facilities as “companions” (similar to “animal therapy” with seemingly similar results).
According to advocates, the robot has advantages to animals:
No hygiene problem It can be fitted with features such as surveillance, bio-control, communication technology
…and a robot can patiently listen to your complaints…
CRITIQUE: Inhumane and a shift to the “sterile care-service” !? Background picture: © Sony Corporation
“AIBO” (Sony Corporation / Japan)
AIBO is an “Entertainment Robot” commercially available for home use, created by the Sony Corp. All models are four-legged and vaguely resemble a “dog”. AIBO is an acronym for Artificial Intelligence Ro bo t and can also mean “pal” in Japanese = 相棒). It can “communicate”, learn and simulate emotions to a limited extend.
Sony never /*officially*/ intended AIBO to be a “pet-substitute”
Nonetheless… << Most people name their robots << some take them on journeys /*which may sound counter-productive*/ << some celebrate (family) festivities together with it << especially Japanese “AIBOwners” treat their robots like pets (or at least are more willing to admit it publicly…)
Picture: AIBO ERS-7 – the only model available in Germany
“AIBO” (Sony Corporation / Japan)
…Such effects seem to be intended AIBO ERS -312 & ERS -311 << In Japan AIBOwners get an ID and “ AIBOwner’s card” or one can get a “Birth Certificate”) << “ill” robots /*broken robots*/ are “cared” for /*repaired*/ in so -called “AIBO -Clinics” /*repair shops*/ (and spare parts should be available for a longer period of time …) << There are AIBO “Kennel Clubs”
AIBO may have initiated a kind of Lifestyle -Phenomenon”… << AIBOwner’s forming Networks (mostly over the Internet) << They organize meetings; “AIBO Town Magazine and Homepage” etc . << Many German AIBOwners show interest in Jap. Pop -Culture
AIBO: The beginning of a new form of relationship?! “Partner Robots”?
A term coined in Japan – Mr. Suzuki, engineer at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in charge of the “ Wakamaru ” project has provided an explanation of the term. Communication (high interaction)
„Wakamaru “
Robot as Friend / Partner Robot as Butler (Tetsuwan Atomu )
„master-slave“ „autonomy“
Robot as Slave Robot as stranger / alien (Tetsujin 28-go )
Movement (low interaction)
Own reconstruction and modification of chart, courtesy Mr. J. Suzuki; picture: www.androidworld.com
INDUSTRY “Partner Robot”
Affection Human Human (result) Important Step 3 for factory function
Step 2 communication Important order communication for community of home humans and robots
Step 1 („contact“, interaction)
Robot Robot
family This would certainly be something for future The few AIBOwnersThere are in Germany signs indicating I havepartner this,asked at thisleast quest in Japan…ion so far, said that they wouldsociological not just and throw psychological away a brokenstudies –AIBO. Andas a childin how didn’t far want will to people give up beits “PaPeRo”able to just prot throwotype, SomeButor can asof buteven thempeople in grown-up mywould growview reuse it Jap. toois not the AIBOwnersattached friendnew hardware and nottowards have for difficult presenteda new robots? rob ot, for people to get attachedaway a brokento (moving robot and interacti? ve) objects “AIBO-doctors”Others would evenwith candy put their boxesfellow “dead” as human gifts AIBO for “curinon displayg their withpets…” a (e.g“death studies certificate” by Sherry Turkle and reuse in regard the AIBO-ware,to computers which and computer-toys) stores the robot’s “personality”,pet in a new model /* In both, the Western and Japanese tradition, early automata have evolved from the concept of the doll combined with what was then considered modern mechanics */
/* Although Japan makes a very extended use of industrial robots, many of the “humanoid projects” rather seem to connect to the tradition of the doll (or automata “Karakuri ”) */
In the Western world the machine has established itself as a “ philosophical object ” to a much greater extend than in Japan (e.g. Descartes, Hobbes, de la Mettrie)
“Western thought”: “ the natural ” (humanity) is defined by contrasting nature (humans) against artifacts (non-humans)
Japan: the artificial often regarded as a means to understand and simulate the natural The Natural and the Artificial “co-exist side by side in harmony ” (Kaplan) e.g.: Frédéic Kaplan: “Who is Afraid f the Humanoid – Investigating Cultural Differences in the acceptation of robots” (paper; Sony Computer Science Laboratory)
View of contrasting subject against object seems to be rather absent in Japan - to the people I asked, such a concept was quite unfamiliar…
Some ( Japanese ) concerns:
Jap. Ceremony for old dolls “Saya”, Tokyo Science Univ. Right “Actroid”, Kokoro Dreams
“Uncanny Valley ” (Masahiro Mori): If the robot looks too human-like, it may become “uncanny” at stage before a 100% natural look (this doesn’t differ much from some Western concerns, e.g. Frankenstein’s Monster)
Japanese treat dolls (and certain other objects) in a quite respectful manner (mistreating a doll is considered cruel and some even fear being cursed by a mistreated doll) Same concern might arise in regard to robots ? How and as what to treat them? (nicely portrayed in Mamoru Oshii‘s „Innocence “ (animé) and “ANIMATRIX”) Different Thoughts: Germany vs. Japan GERMANY JAPAN Robots are machines and machines Robots are not contrasted against are contrasted against humans & animals humans – no subject -object dichotomy (Latour‘s „Modernity“) („Japanese have never been ‚modern ‘“ ) In Western tradition the machine has a The machine doesn‘t cause a „philosophical “ quality fear about „downgrading “ debate „downgrading “ the human being („ parallel existence in harmony “ (Kaplan) „Posthuman Fears “ No posthuman debate Possessing some form of affinity towards Affinity towards robots not robots (objects in general) is considered disencouraged through social settings as rather socially inacceptable behavior Robots should be functional, “human -like Robots should be liked functionality qualities” should only serve user - often even regarded as secondary Friendliness (“Interface”) („Partner “) A Robot is an assistant at the most A robot should be more than just an assistant Concept of „Partner Robot “ “Rebelling Slave -Syndrome ” Once “Doll-Curse-Syndrome ” Technology controlled technology gets out of control can be tamed through integration and “respect”
Japan – The „Robot Kingdom“ !?
What kind of observations lead to this perception?
- Japan has at least 4 major (and many minor) projects in the field of biped-walking „humanoid robots“ running :
ASIMO HRP-2 HOAP-2 PINO QRIO Toyota Humanoid Honda Motors AIST, NEDO, Kawada Fujitsu ZMP, Inc. Sony Toyota Motors
Pictures not in proportion to actual dimensions Very much Public Interest Promotion
ASIMO‘s Schedule 2003 – 2004 - Promotional appearance at the TH Darmstadt Germany - Promotion for NTT DoCoMo at CEATEC 2003 / Japan - Engagement at Takashimaya Department Stores throughout Japan - State visit to the Czech Republic with Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi - Promotional appearance at the closing ceremony at the Japanese Stock Market - Pounding traditional rice-cakes at the New Year’s celebration at Honda Motors HQ - Promotional appearance at the Hannover Messe (Press Day) - Diverse engagements at museums and companies as “receptionist”
QRIO‘s Schedule 2003 – 2004 - Celebrating the opening of the new “Shinkansen ” station at Shinagawa - Attending the Japanese Year’s End Song Contest Extravaganza - Speaking as guest star in a new „Astro Boy “ series - Conducting the Tokyo Philharmonic Orchestra - Participating at a children’s concert - Promotional session at CeBIT Hanover / Germany - Throwing a ceremonial pitch at the Padres vs. Mets baseball-game (San Diego US)
Japanese Prime Minister Kozumi and the government (METI) supports Japanese robot research:
Special Economic Zone Project: allowing robot tests on public roads in Fukuoka
- RoboSquare (Fukuka) and TEPIA (Tokyo) are supported by the government - Humanoid Robotics Project (HRP) supported by METI (results are HRP-2, ASIMO, QRIO and the OpenPINO-platform)
One hears rather few „robot criticism“ or critical discussions in Japan Impression of great robot-affinity in Japanese‘ general public (but one also hears little public concerns about nuclear power plants…)
Historical and socio-economic factors: - Weak unions - Strong „Nationalism“ which allows such kind of „Interest Promotion Strategies“ - Not a „debate-culture“ in contrast to Germany - „Robots“ as symbol for Japan‘s economic power and
Japan‘s “Race Against the Future “ Activities lead to the perception of Japan being the „Robot Kingdom“
overesimations regarding the abilities of Japanese robots ?
So, what‘s really behind it?
Why isn‘t Germany called the „Robot Kingdom“?
MOSRO Care-O-Bot II ™ Fraunhofer IPA
HERMES Univ. d. Bundeswehr / München
Germany‘s „Hidden “ Potential ! DID YOU KNOW…? - In many demographic (aging society, low birth-rate) and economic (growing joblessness, stagnating economy, deficit problem) aspects the situation in Germany and Japan is quite similar.
- Japan imports much machinery (machine tools) and medical equipment from Germany ! - Germany houses world-leading industries , such as AIXTRON (Aachen), the world’s leading producer of manufacturing equipment for semi-conductors and so-called wafers, giving Aachen the nickname of “LED-Town ”! - Japan uses European / German technology for its space-program !
- The analysis equipment for „Mars Express “ and the rovers „Spirit and „Opportunity “ are German technology !
- MP3 -Technology has been a German invention from a Fraunhofer Institute, but they were unable to find a German company supporting thei r invention
- Transrapid -technology comes from Germany – although the Chinese are using it „invented in Germany – but applied elsewehere “ - With the Heinz Nixdorf MueumsForum Germany houses the world’s largest Computer- and IT-museum with a new permanent exhibition about robotics, Artficial Intelligence and Information Technology (IT).
- MOSRO 1 from the German company „Robowatch Technologies“ was the world‘s first security robot in serial-production and has already been sold over 200 times, other example - German researchers also advocate an android shape for robots in regard to AI-research and acceptability, e.g. DFG 588 “ ARMAR” (University Karlsruhe) ARMAR SYSTEM -“Care-O-Bot ” ™ platform (Fraunhofer IPA) proofs promising
- Two German researchers are working on Sony‘s QRIO-project
- Germany is world‘s second-largest producer and user of industrial robots – some sources even quote „first place“ (but evidence is still missing for that assumption.)
- I‘ve got the impression that Germany has the more pragmatic robot-projects than Japan
MOSRO1 Banryu (番竜） RoboWatch / Germany tmsuk / Japan
ム 鉄腕アト
…a fictional biped robot hero from a Manga created by Osamu Tezuka (1928 - 1989)
has been and still is a great inspiration for many Japanese roboticists, politicians (including the major of Fukuoka and supporter of the “RoboSquare” Project) and „normal citizens“ (although in my view Tezuka‘s intention has not been to popularize robots, but rather to call on humanity !)
Often named in connection to Japanese’ affinity towards robots and decision for “Humanoids” Different Concept-Strategies may explain the perception of Japan as „Robot Kingdom“
GERMANY: „Form Follows Function“ Japan: „Function Follows Form“ TIME Reseach Phase Access Reseach Phase Access
Purpose analysis Insider „Vision “, building Insider Research Prototypes „LOOKS“ Research for Insider Working on „ Looks “ Interested Implementation (upgrades) Public hardware, software Insider „Promotional General and AI, reserach Prototype“ Public prototype, upgrades (upgrades cont..)
Purpose? General „Public“ Prototypes „LOOKS“ Intersted (upgrades cont.) Public (upgrades cont.) Public
Matured Products General Matured Products General Public Public Sales (?) Sales (?)
Examples: Care-O-Bot, HERMES, ARMAR Examples: ASIMO, QRIO, AIBO
Since the Japanese possess such popular “humanoid-robot projects”, which are conducted by large corporations and their promotion is even encouraged by the government, the conception of the “ Japanese Robot Kingdom ” arises.
Japanese and German projects often not comparable, because of different Project-emphasis which are superior = difficult to answer
In regard to pragmatism Germans seem to have the more solid concepts. - In my view it would be hard to imagine that a German company develops a robot “just” to dance and do preprogrammed small-talk
Comment from Dipl.-Inf. B. Graf at the Fraunhofer IPA in regard to humanoid Robots such as ASIMO or QRIO (formerly known as SDR-4XII)
The research efforts are too high in relation to the benefits .
German interest in “humanoids” in the context of “embodyment” for AI-research (Rodney A. Brooks, Thomas Christaller), but not primarily because of “looks” Japanese thought about Robots:
Quote from Honda Motors in regard to ASIMO (http://www.asimo.honda.com)
“[…] can walk independently and climb stairs. This is important, because in a world full of high curbs, uneven surfaces, obstacles and stairways, this ability is absolutely necessary for ASIMO - or any robot - to be able to easily function and truly assist humans.”
Quote from Toyota Motors in regard to their humanoid model (http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/special/robot/index.html)
“The walking model walks on two legs similar to a person, making it easy to become accustomed to.”
Quote in regard to QRIO (Sony) by Satoshi Amagai, President Entertainment Robot Company (Interviews at: (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/story/index_nf.html)
“To bring people emotional value, I should think. That is the way entertainment robots will become established as a new method of enjoyment. It's fun just to have a robot around, it offers new kinds of social interaction, it makes everyday life more interesting -- we want to offer people the happiness of fulfillment. Thus, we want to build a culture around living with a robot.”
Why does Japan seem to be more advanced in the field of robotics than Germany
Preliminary Conclusion: Japanese „Promotional Protoypes “ and function follows form“ strategy „humanoids“ cause „wow-effect“
Robots as company’s prestige object Results in a kind of “Diffusion ” effect (nearly every major company has its robot)
For Japanese robots don‘t have to be necessarily seen in the light of pragmatism (e.g. Paro, NeCoRo, QRIO, AIBO and a whole array of mechatronic toys)
Germany too pragmatic ?! (robot-”pets” like AIBO represent the present stand of technology to be commercialized.)
Financing: Japan : Major robotics projects run entirely or in co-operation with large corporations Germany: Financing mainly from the state or private sponsors As a researcher at the Fraunhofer IPA has told me that they have difficulties to find a company which is willing to support the Care-O-Bot ™ project. Who would build and sell an “German AIBO”? Germany : Insufficient interest from companies and the general public in robot-products Difficulty for German research institutes to make sufficient use of their developments General problem with realization of innovative ideas
Japan: robot-technology = “National Pride” Supported by government “to win the race against the future” that is to keep ahead of Japan’s economic rivals (even more pressing in regard to the emerging situation in China and South-Korea.)
Japanese people are much more used to the idea of robots (toys, “Astro Boy”) and concerns about their deployment are rather rare.
The reasons are multi-dimensional , including economic, historical, religious, social, cultural and political factors That‘s where the cultural factors as mentioned influence the economic and political aspects.
Maybe in 2050 , Japanese and German robots will be equal in regard to functionality and perhaps even social acceptability, but since Japan started its campaign much earlier, it has already strengthened its perception as “ Robot Kingdom ” (what I call the “Cherry Blossom Effect”)
Special Thanks to:
www.aibo-freunde.de
Picture: © Sony Corporation