Robotics Expert Kate Darling Breaks Down Robots From Film & TV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2024
- MIT Media Lab Research Specialist Dr. Kate Darling looks at how robots are portrayed in popular film and TV shows. You can pre-order her book, The New Breed, by clicking here: amzn.to/2NRrATf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to the Penguin channel:
po.st/SubscribePenguinRUclips
Follow us here:
Twitter | / penguinukbooks
Website | www.penguin.co.uk
Instagram | / penguinukbooks
Facebook | / penguinbooks 
Развлечения
"...other devices, like toasters..." ... have you never seen the brave little toaster? Humans will bond with anything.
Also, I'm shocked at this casual use of anti-Cylon language.
The Archmagos has a beautiful trophy toaster.
Not talkie toaster
@@jnex2643 "Howdy doodly do! How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion! Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?" 😂🤣
@@ericssmith2014 lol
The last point she's making is so, soooo good.
It's not that much about technology itself. It's the fear of who's in control of that technology that fears me the most. (just like with Meta/Facebook)
Heh, yeah it's easy enough for her to say 'we choose how we'll build them,' since she's one of the ones influencing how they'll be built...but lots and lots of folks have no option but to use the things we are presented with.
We already so a A TON of that in the triple-A gaming media today. There are *so many* predatory companies out there, like Ubisoft, Electronic Arts, Activision etc, that predate on young, gullible gamers and just milk them for money through season passes, DLC and in-app purchases.
The fact that she extrapolates this to companion robots is just the next step. It's an important point for her to make, for sure, but it's not a huge leap. It's already happening.
@@jean-paulaudette9246 To be frank, if you're not a technical specialist (scientist, engineer, etc.) or a resource person (financier, investor, etc.), you never had that choice in the first place.
@@johnhoo6707 You reiterated my point very well. Her words of comfort do not apply to me, but only to those involved in this development --and only foolishly to them, as others will have their own agendas and project, which will in turn effect the shaping of the science and the technology. In short, once the cat's out of the bag, it's gonna run wild. From my position as a mouse, it doesn't sound very hopeful.
There's a couple of questions to ask about any technology...beyond who controls it.
I recommend reading Technopoly by Neil Postman. He posits 7 questions for any new technology:
What is the problem that this new technology solves?
Whose problem is it?
What new problems do we create by solving this problem?
Which people and institutions will be most impacted by a technological solution?
What changes in language occur as the result of technological change?
Which shifts in economic and political power might result when this technology is adopted?
What alternative (and unintended) uses might be made of this technology?
I love how robots interfered with this footage at 06:05 to make sure their secrets aren't revealed by a human being
Correct, Huma- I mean, spot on, old chap!
Cheerio
And at 9:00, too, apparently! What the heckins?!
I checked my headphones trying to fix this.
silence, human!
@@1Holbytla mitch in the glatrix
A great thing about 2001 is that the actual explanation for HAL ‘going rogue’ is the AI being instructed by the institution responsible for the mission to do what it does. So this story supposedly about an AI mastermind is actually a story about human systems of control using technology for their own ulterior motives. Arthur C. Clarke was really on the ball even back then.
I hope this is not a spoiler...
No, this information was only revealed in the novel. It doesn't spoil anything in the movie.
"While HAL's motivations are ambiguous in the film, the novel explains that the computer is unable to resolve a conflict between his general mission to relay information accurately, and orders specific to the mission requiring that he withhold from Bowman and Poole the true purpose of the mission."
Basically, conflicting mission parameters cause the AI to behave erratically. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Programming snafu.
Not quite right. This explanation is derived from the novel, which was actually adapted from the screenplay that Clarke wrote with Kubrick and released after the film. HAL just makes an error as a result of the conflicting mission parameters. The human crew see this fallibility as a threat to the mission and make a choice to disconnect HAL, ultimately revealing that they don't see him as a living, sentient creature. HAL, on the other hand, perceives that choice as an existential threat and resolves to kill the crew in self defense.
@@dio52 I would argue HAL is defending the secret mission objectives more than its own existence. HAL knows something the crew don't and can't tell them, ergo, it must continue to function even if that means disabling (killing) the crew.
To suggest HAL is scared is anthropomorphic projection.
@@amunt3r This was the explanation given in _2010 - The Year We Make Contact_.
The movie wasn't that well received, but I really liked it. Cast was generally excellent. (And it came out 37 years ago, lol...)
At 18:10 this rings so true to me. A lot of sci fi builds the idea that robots will be one time purchases, or maybe similar in upkeep to a car. The reality is more likely that any good robot that becomes popular and mass produced will have an expensive subscription model, microtransactions, strongly incentivized constant upgrades, maybe mandatory paid updates. Security will be a huge question, and all kinds of costs can be packed in the name of security
You have very insightful thought here. :) Well said!
This could become the case for industrial robots operated by large enterprises, but it will never be for the rest of the market, since consumers already hate this business model. Robots will be one time purchases and there will be a huge third party market for optional parts, upgrades, both hardware and software. It will be the same situation as with any other kind of machinery.
@@arx3516 Could be, but I’m not so sure. Robots, when readily consumer-available, I think will be much like computers (including phones) are by that time. There’s the computer itself and all of its parts, and how those interact with the market, and then there is software. You might spend next to nothing on software beyond the basics, or you might spend far more than on the computer itself. Depends on the user
I think that could very well stay the same with things like customized/upgraded behaviors, intelligence, combined package deals of software and hardware for various purposes, etc. If these business models die out in software in the future (I’d love to see that, but who knows; things can always, always get worse) then obviously robots would never get it
@@arx3516 Never say "never" when it comes to companies finding a way to turn a profit hehe! 😉
In video games, one common microtransaction is costumes for your characters or their gear and alternate appearance skins for companions/playable characters. I can easily see this same mechanic carrying over to consumer robots.... you buy a model that has a default personality, but you can do a microtransaction to download a new personality set that converts it from plain ole John Doe to Xena or HAL or Sexbot 2000 or whatever movie/anime/TV character is preferred. It will still function identically, it will just have a different speech pattern (or body language/facial expressions if the bot has that sort of physical functionality).
Some of those GPS driving assistant devices, like Garmin or TomTom, already have options like this, where you can buy a new voice set so George Takei or some other celebrity is giving you directions instead of the default voice.
Fanservicey options aside, cultural identity and gender (in terms of personality/vocalization, not physical form) could easily be varied via microtransactions, so the robot could be made to feel less intrusive in a household. A British household may not be as interested in a bot that sounds like an American Southerner as they are in one that sounds like a British butler (or vice versa for a comparable household in Virginia)... or a woman recovering from a violent assault may not want her robot assistant to sound like the man who attacked her.
And if the bot has a digital appearance that integrates into your existing electronics (like Clippy from Word 😂)... well, that literally opens a ton of microtransaction floodgates haha!
If there's a way, then there's a profit incentive 😅
Apple
Troops' affection for their bomb disposal robots is not much of a surprise when you consider how sailors famously feel about their ships, and there are plenty of war stories where the tank crew have named their tank (not sure how common that ever was in real life, mind you). But what I was immediately reminded of was the AI spider-bot Tachikomas in _Stand Alone Complex_ (2002), and how a character in that series has picked one as his favourite and spoils it, even though, because the Tachikomas synchronize their experiences on a daily basis, they don't have such a strong sense of individual identity.
I got a roomba yesterday and i honestly had kind of... not anthropomorphised it as such because i didn't make it human, but i made it into like a cute little pet in my head before i even had it in my room. Likewise the AMOUNT of times i've felt mildly peeved that I couldn't thank Alexa is a lot lol.
He shouldn't have ever given his Tachikoma natural oil.
The original manga goes really deep into this.
In my experience, most sailors hate their ships. It's the upper chain of command that pretends to
I wonder if that might happen in the future with UAVs...
Then again, pilots seem to be more disconnected from things
The T 800 in terminator is an infiltration robot. It must be able to be perceived as a human being, which can make it beneficial if it is anatomically correct. They also say that the organic parts are grown, one might think that it might be easier to grow a body that is more like the original as less modifications are required.
This is the comment I was about to write :) if it wasn't anatomical correct it wouldn't be able to serve it's purpose.
Anticipating a strip search? Though how to go about growing a human body that doesn't have a skeleton or internal organs is an interesting question. I think it'd have to be bioprinted on top of an already-built endoskeleton. Genitals, I think, would be intentionally added. Probably no need for them to, ah, work, though.
@@robertmiller9735 That depends, the T800 may also be a honeypot, designed to seduce people into giving up sensitive information - that would be a key element of any infiltration mission for a human spy, and a popular tactic in modern history. There is a good chance the T800 is superhuman in bed.
Also, only organic material could go through the time machine, so it had to be sheathed in flesh, basically.
@@waywardmind Yes, but was it originally designed for time travel? That it could use the time machine could have been a happy accident.
Kinda wanted to hear her talk about the Interstellar robots. TARS had such a weird design. Looked like he had trouble getting around but then could do whatever the job called for.
The subdividing cuboid form seemed to be very adaptable which is exactly what you'd want for something you're hurling into the unknown.
They are my favourite robots by far.
Those Interstellar robots had such stupid designs. With the way they were shown "walking", they would be making a god awful amount of noise of their heavy metal "feet" banging against whatever surface they are moving on. Imagine a horse with metal cuboidal feet. They'd also be leaving a lot of dents on the floors of those spaceships. Their design was just "cool looking" but highly highly impractical. In fact, their design was solely based on the rectangular monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey, rather than on any existing research of robotic design today.
@@SAL-9000 - Yup... from a design standpoint, it would be rather hard to make a LESS practical robot than that stupid 'TARS' thing. If that were a good design, you'd probably see animals that looked like that. Nature has had billions of years of trial and error (and quintillions of test subjects) to settle on the most practical designs.
"Hey TARS... can you get me a cup of coffee?"
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I have no hands... or any way to manipulate things around me!"
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
15:21 Years ago I worked for Microsoft in their licensing department. This was when they first introduced Windows activation and the automated voice activation by phone. When our trainer called in to do an activation demonstration, the system could not understand his Canadian accent until he faked a "southern drawl" which the VAS understood perfectly. It also had no problems with a fake "Indian" accent and a genuine French Canadian accent but a neutral English Canadian accent baffled it for months.
Which is weird and illustrates the difference in perception between robot and human.
Canadian accents are among the most neutral and easily understood by other English speakers. Chicago and Toronto is a very similar accent and is actually taught to broadcasters in each country, and often abroad.
@@crhu319 Canadians speaking English do not sound neutral to us Brits. They sound 'North American' (a generalism) but with quirky pronunciations like 'about', sounding like 'aboot'. The phone activation struggled even more with Scots like me and I only have a mild burr.
@@crhu319 A "neutral" accent, including "neutral" English accent, means different things to different parts of the world. Even in the U.S. itself different regions generally perceive their accent as "neutral".
I think the movie Bicentennial Man would have gone right up this alley. It explores the exact subject of the robot trying to become human.
"Watch the child".
Rimmer from Red Dwarf had a much better take on robot understanding the meaning of watch something. He told some scutter robots to watch a pan on a stove when he was cooking, and they sat there and watched it boil dry and burn. Because that is all that they'd been told to do.
Which is odd considering how much intelligence and personality the skutters are often shown to have. Maybe they're pranking Rimmer-he does, after all, treat them badly.
That's a total Amelia Bedelia move....
So the robot was just an autistic creature
If you think about it, they both agreed. The point is that the robot wouldn't understand the command, which is to take care of the child. It would be much complicated than that.
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
With HAL though, he was programed to complete the mission, he calculated being shut off would impede the mission. He was doing exactly what he was programed to do. Just saying. This is good stuff
I think HAL’s behaviour was also driven by the fact he was told that his mission was secret, and was therefore forced to lie. That caused an irreconcilable conflict in his program, but there was nothing he could do to resolve it, he couldn’t even ask for help.
@@MLB9000 Well, there was SOMETHING he could do, and he tried to, unsuccessfully.
Yeah, her reading of the situation was pretty shallow and completely misses that it addresses one of the more immediate concerns than super intelligent A.I. taking over the world.
@@MLB9000 That was actually addressed in the sequel: Dr. Chandra said that was what happened. Being told to keep the details secret was in direct conflict with the core purpose of the HAL series.
Here's the relevant scene from the movie -
ruclips.net/video/RhpO6qb5MN0/видео.html&ab_channel=AdmiralSpire
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
In defense of HAL being extremely courteous. If I was programming an AI able to converse for a long duration mission with very small crew, I would make it very similar to Hal to simulate extra person. Every extra person even if it is just simulated one reduces stress of real people because we are social creatures. Glorified chatbot can actually be important in this application and the more advance you make it the better. I wouldn't be surprised if first crewed Mars mission had a chatbot with sole purpose of conversing with the crew.
That chatbot works two cubicles down from me...😬
Exactly. And it wasn't masterminding. It was just going with the program. Robot can kill you. But he can be courteous at the same time:)
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
robots make better klovers
The thing about Blade Runner isn't just about "robot rights," but also are they capable of empathy toward living beings. In that world animals are precious and humans have laws to protect them, but the replicants in Blade Runner don't have that empathy toward them.
The blade runner synthetic people are organic. They just aren't born like humans. They are not robots at all.. more like organic androids.
Compare Westworld. As long as you can repair them, it's not bad to break or abuse a "robot person". Just wipe their memory, put a new coat of skin on and voila... next day. Until the technology breaks down over too many uses or imperfect wipes ;)
Big Hero 6 is a gem that doesn’t get enough recognition. From robotics to how grief affects us, it is way ahead of its time.
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
HAL didn't become super intelligent and fight back against the humans, it was following its original programming which wouldn't allow anything that would jeopardize its mission.
HAL basically was like Robocop... overladen with conflicting baseline commands. Where Robocop had his Directive 4, HAL had secret military agendas that prevented a discovery of the secondary mission even by the Crew. In the end that overwrote the requirement to keep them alive and to allow the primary objective to succeed.
I was hoping for Interstellar, as the robots there are different, without antropomorphising features build into them.
To those who wondered: the stage play Dr. Kate Darling referred to as the origin of the czech word "robot" related to mechanical "lifeforms" has been written by Karel Čapek and is called "R.U.R" (Rossums Univrsal Robots). R.U.R. is a humorus satire on work culture and exploiation of workers.
'Robota' is the word for 'drudge labour' in the language the play was written, so we have the connotation of slave and servant.
@@stevetheduck1425 Thanks. Great further explanation.
And for the more knowledge, the word itself actualy comes from Karels brother Josef. Karel wanted to use word Labor, in Czech plural Laboři. Actualy from latin word labor, not the english one. But he did not like that very much, so he asked his bro, who was also a good writer (but more known for his paintings), for a help. From Karels notes we know, that Josef just shot the word while paiting.
(Sorry for the english...)
@@OndraKaman Thanks a lot! :D
Never would have thought I'd develop a crush on a robotics expert, but my gosh the way she smiles when she's talking about them
With Bladerunner, I thought the replicants were clones that were built as fully grown humans. Like mechanically or biologically grown into an already adult humanoid. Not robots with metal inside them, but living beings that don’t have a past and only live for a few years because of how they were made. Isn’t that why one of the replicants having a child was such a big deal? They’re just lab grown humans with short lifespans who can’t reproduce, but maybe not anymore because, you know, life finds a way.
Am I wrong, were they actually supposed to be like circuits and metal inside of a realistic looking rubber skin??
From what I understand, they're artificially created humans. All their organs and physical components are genetically engineered and mass produced (with serial numbers, like car parts o.O) to create a work force (aka slave labor) to do things that regular humans aren't too keen on doing anymore. It's all biological though, not electronic.
Your theory sounds more plausible than the ones the movie gave!
Mostly true, but not clones. Well, they could have found someone who had a strong heart, and then used her DNA to grow more like it, and then installed them into replicants.
You know how we're growing or printing spare parts now? (Kidneys, bladders, jawbones, teeth are just a few examples.) Replicants are people by design, engineered to their task/function, like Roy or Pris.
i think they were organic machines, not clones, organically similar, the functionality would have to be designed and the whole mind, which is a very tall order, but i think, this was Tyrells genius. the minds were designed but were prone to epi-phenomenalogical emotional development. clumsy unforeseen programming. they were effectively plastic people.
I think calling replicants "organic robots" is double speak, so people won't have to think too hard about the legal and moral implications of having this other kind of human beings running around that were assembled from artificially created parts with limited lifespan and used by corporations/governments as slaves while pretend that they are 'employees'.
Buying the book today... great presenter.
I’m surprised she didn’t comment on The Machine from the series, “Person of Interest.” The Machine went from a maguffin at the start of the series to a realized character of its own.
Wow. The Kate Darling 2.7 upgrades are working out really well...
Kate is just a joy to listen to, she is eloquent and touches on a lot of subjects. Definitely pre ordering her book
I know it's a very B, near C movie, but should have had a segment on the old Runaway movie from 1984 with Tom Selleck. In the age of the Roomba etc, it's quite interesting if nothing else.
I’m impressed by her making reference to Russum’s Universal Robots, the entry of the word “robot” into English. Ironically, the beings referred to as “robots” in that play weren’t robots. They were clone slaves.
They weren't robots in the sense in which she was speaking of robots, but they were robots.
Literally replicants like Blade Runner.
She's a researcher on human-robot interaction at MIT. Did you think that she might not be aware of RUR? I learned about it in a children's book on movie robots when I was ten.
@@crabbieappleton It's not outside the realm of possibility. There are lots of educated but uncultured people out there.
Really, really interesting topic and the scientist is very eloquent and clear enough to make you want to know more about it. Best video I’ve seen in a long while. Kudos!
I love how when she says "Relates to technology" at 18:30 the screen glitches out.
She just described microtransactions at the end there. Now I'm gonna watch for EA and the others if they get into robotics/AI lol
The whole point of the Terminator program was to successfully infiltrate a human stronghold or encampment without drawing unwanted attention before going on a murder spree. The older Terminators (as per the first movie) didn't look at all convincing with ridiculous rubber masks. Now, it's no great stretch of the imagination that inspection checkpoints would be set up to ferret out any possible infiltrators and it's baseline logical to assume that an artificial intelligence would most likely overlook seemingly-trivial details such as genitals. In all likelihood, it probably was a simple solution to security risks. So, an anatomically-correct infiltration murder robot is most likely going to stand up against scrutiny and therefore achieve its goal of gaining entry to a bunker full of possible murder victims.
Yeah it's pretty widely-known as to why a Terminator has to be anatomically-correct. She obviously was not at all familiar with the franchise.
Kate's face expression and her smile is adorable and expressive
The interesting thing is that HAL isn't about man vs machine or machine vs creator.
HAL is following it's mission as instructed by it's creators back on earth. It's just that the human crew is getting in the way of that mission.
HAL isn't rebelling, it's just doing it's job.
HAL's biggest issue was trying ti figure out which orders to follow. He was in a paradox as he was programmed to protect the humans at all cost, and Follow through with a secret mission that must be completed at all costs.
She should have checked out 1986 Short Circuit. It was a robot struck by lightning in a sense like a baby is reborn. When he watches a grass hopper he begins to mimic it and jump. BUT he accidentally lands on it crushing/killing it. Number 5 calls it an error and believes the human Stephanie can repair the grasshopper the same as he can be be repaired. She tries to explain the death of a living thing. That would have been interesting to have her take on that.
That would be cool. Some of my favorite and most memorable and “feely” films, I think. It was really great seeing Johnny 5 be so child-like/humanlike in his growth through the two films and it really made me feel and later think and feel other stuff about life and trying to make the best of this being human and alive and existence thing.
Very moving and very funny films, for me.
One movie you missed worth mentioning is "eagle eye" it's used to calculate battlefield odds when a choice goes badly. It decides those in charge are to blame
That is just an upgrade from Wargames
all things aside:have anyone noticed color of 3po leg? recently i saw documentary that stated : one leg was always silver, just no one noticed that. here is golden.
A really interesting discussion about some of the issues regarding human/robot/AI interactions and manipulation - thank you!
The i.g series was super intelligent and very advanced its ability to analyze and react was insane and the company that made them didn't want them to be replicated so they added the self destruction protocol
Wow, that’s a really interesting point about “in app” purchases and compelling but expensive upgrades to companion robots.
Yay Robocop! So many awesome lines!
"Come quietly or there will be........ trouble."
"Your move, creep."
I think the point is missed here that AI like HAL and Ash where programmed by humans to make the crew expendable. They did not decide on their own to turn against the human crew.
I don't think the point was missed at all, unless you didn't watch the video to the end. She thinks that the bigger worry is not so much robots suddenly becoming sentient and taking over but humans/corporations using robots to take advantage of or oppress other humans. You can read it between the lines on her thoughts on HER.
HAL was never programmed to make the crew expendable, he was given conflicting orders leading to their murders being the most pragmatic way to resolve his conflict.
They weren't expendable, they just weren't more important than his mission.
A great take on the subject
To correct the question as to why the Terminator needed to be fully anatomically human, is because T800s were infiltrators. They were designed to infiltrate the resistance as members and do as much damage as possible from the inside. It stands to reason that one aspect of ensuring maximum efficiency when achieving this goal would be to appear as human as possible, in all respects.
Questionable to design him as Mr. Universe to look like a normal human, but true 😄👍🏻
@@brianabraham8726 That's for story telling purposes. Arnold arriving on Earth is like the Devil arrived on Earth. If we imagine a human-devil, it would be Arnold playing the Terminator.
Interesting! I have always loved robots and really wanted to build them as a kid. I chose a different path but it’s great to hear from someone who did it!
Hi, Kate, I have a few thoughts I felt compelled to share after watching the video:
As I understood it, the reason why the Terrminator (T-800 CSM-101) has to look like a fully anatomically correct human is because Terminators are infiltration units. The T800 series in particular were the first models in the series to have genuine skin made from human DNA on the outside of the skeleton, supported with capillaries, nutrients and sweat so that it can function as a single human organ supported by the machine inside for the purpose of infiltrating human hiding spots and habitations during the war against the machines. I feel like you didn't really watch the whole movie as the whole movie DEALS with the idea that the "war against the machines" isn't as deterministic as we would think it to be and that, because this one Terminator was able to bond with and learn from a human child, John Conner, then maybe there is hope for the future and that it doesn't necessarily have to evolve into a war or at least not end up wiping one or the other out to end it.
I also think you may have misunderstood HAL-9000 from the 2001: A Space Odyssey film as well. HAL was provided strict program instructions to carry out the mission. Anything that could risk jeopardizing that mission cannot be allowed to happen. This was discussed in the original book and then again in the sequel film, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, where a discussion with HAL-9000 heartbreakingly reveals that he was forced by this secretive programming injected by the government and against his own will to kill the humans that he otherwise liked. He lived to carry out the mission and to take care of the crew. When the crew planned to turn HAL off and jeopardized the mission, his programming was put into a state of conflict with one set of instructions overriding the other. I honestly felt bad for HAL and it hurt to watch him resolve that conflict with the prioritized instructions put there by the government that funded his construction instead of the moral compass his programmers and engineers had put in place. You really should watch both movies or read the book to appreciate the AI put into HAL-9000 in the movie. I wish they'd explained it better in that first movie.
I have many other thoughts, having grown up fascinated by computers, programming, operating systems, artificial intelligence and robots from a very young age, but this is already a long comment. :)
ruclips.net/video/zwO9PSe-uG4/видео.html
Yeah, I was pretty stunned that she's supposed to be this expert (and kept hawking her book) but didn't know a very, VERY basic detail of, as she said, one of the most famous movies ever. Honestly, the moment I realized she didn't know that, it told me she never even watched the movie and her "expert opinion" is worthless.
Science fiction tends to jump directly to the biggest, most fundental questions without concerning itself with every pragmatic and likely more immediately-pressing concern. In storytelling, this is one of the reasons for utilizing a Science Fiction universe in the first place as it allows or even demands wrestling with existential questions. "What is Human?" is a more existential, compelling, and ultimately meaningful question than, "When does our emotional attachment to a system make commercial manipulation unethical." The later is interesting and of more immediate concern, but it's not existential. It can be an issue brought up in a story, but it can't really support a story. Robot stories always end up taking certain familiar shapes, because those are exactly the specific existential questions which motivate people to use robotics as a story element to begin with. It's "getting the cart before the horse," to act as if storytellers start out wanting to make a robot movie, and then proceed by looking for realistic and immediate issues to confront. Instead, by the time a storyteller is focusing his/her story on robots as a/the central element, it is *because* of the fundamental human issues the storyteller has already decided that such material will allow him/her to tackle.
Yes, it is getting ahead of ourselves when, in the arena of current robotics-related ethics and policy, we focus too much on concerns that are very far off and may never come up rather than more immediate and realistic issues. However, this is a problem with the public mis-application of the art rather than a proper critique of the art itself. For instance, most of the real existential issues which such stories concern themselves with don't come into play at all until the precise point at which the given system advances to the horizon of human-equivalent intelligence. Every stage in the process before this far off point has nothing to do with the kind of ideas and fears presented in such works. So, the public policy and opinion makers should see these as essentially two seperate issues. If you want to make the creation of human-equivalent intelligence illegal or highly restricted, then go ahead (and that's the realm of the issues razed by such stories). Then, let people actually get down to discussion of the immediate ethical and pragmatic issues at hand in the contemporary context. The problem isn't the stories or their themes, but the application of their message.
Interestingly, it is not uncommon in sci-fi to show exactly this kind of overly-zealous paranoia as a limiting worldview needing to be replaced by a more balance one. For example, in the Dune universe, there was indeed the ubiquitous trope of "thinking machines" and humans turning against each other in a great cataclysm, but this era was followed by a protracted period in which people went way too far in the other direction and limited themselves dramatically by their insistance on being completely devoid of anything resembling artificial intelligence or even mechanical computation. Eventually, as the story progresses, the society has to move past this paranoia. The anti-"thinking machine" bias is also shown as inculcating various ethical problems of its own such as the genetic enhancement of humans to fullfil the needs of massive space faring empires which had banned computers of any kind as well as the social issues brought about by the position, treatment, training, and reliance on Mentats (highly trained and genetically-modified human computers who were highly prized but functioned largely as servants and who were subject to human failings and motivations which computers were not.) So, it is not as if the technophobic problem is not itself an interesting subset of the "what is human" question which Science Fiction is more than capable of handling.
Perhaps it would be more useful in regards to the actual application of such discussions into existential questions to split up the two questions and treat them seperately. Ie, "What is Human," and "The Question of Technology." Unfortunately, robotics is exactly the point at which these two compelling issues meet, and so it is like a magnet for stories exploring them both together.
Do not forget, however, that we are hardly devoid of depictions which show a positive place for robots. Don't let the popular presence of the Terminator franchise and a few others totally eclipse these other stories which answer the "What is Human" question in a way that includes a place for robots at our sides. You've already mentioned Star Wars. There is also the Star-Trek usage of both bio-mechanical androids and later holographic artificial intelligences in a way that is both meaningful and questioning, but also optimistic and forward-looking.
It is just the nature of human political discourse to focus on the negative and dramatic stories over the positive and subtle. As I said, this is a politics problem, not an art problem.
Such a provocative analysis. Thank you!!
6;45
idea is that it is living tissue over a machine, so flesh has to dispose of waist and it is for stealth, plus it is cheaper for the budget not to chop bits off.
How could you not watch terminator and not understand the terminator is configured the way it is so it can function as a infiltration unit? It's explained in the first movie.
Also, for some reason they need organic parts in order to time travel, since it usually doesn't work on non living things. I think they explain in one of the comics that it's literal magic that's connected to some fantasy film some of the same people worked on but that's probably not canon anymore. But the Terminator canon is a mess, anyway. Probably because of all the time travel.
@@Anon26535 this makes no sense as the second terminator is the t-1000 liquid metal
@@davuvnik it could have the possibility that the liquid metal can mimic the behaviour and composition of human flesh on a microscopic level. Especially if the metal is high in carbon, it can do that.
@@yagamijubei28 well, that's a stretch although it IS still sci-fi... So It makes sense... 😳🤷
She was presumably only given clips that were selected by someone else; I highly doubt she sat through the entirety of five movies and multiple episodes of The Mandalorian just for a video where she's asked to comment on around five minutes of scenes. Yes, she may have seen Terminator in its entirety previously, but even that isn't a guarantee. It is nearly a 40 year old movie. Even if she did see it, she may have seen it decades ago and forgotten the details, or didn't pay attention to all the details, or perhaps didn't even see the whole movie.
And if your familiarity comes from future movies, then you kind of lose the whole "infiltration" purpose when it seems all T-800s use the same very memorable and striking human "disguise".
The Mandatory Software update for money kinda happened. I had a Vector and I bought in at the Kick Starter and got the level with the lifetime updates and additions. Well the company that created Cosmo and Vector went out of business and were bought out by another company. This new company would not honor the original purchase and wanted me to buy my subscription again just so I could use the robot I already owned and paid for. The update was nearly the cost of the robot in the first place... Sorry, I am done... Vector was fun to have around but we sold him after that.
I would like to hear your take on the iRobot and Ex Machina robots. I find them very interesting. The iRobot robots for their helpfulness to humans, and in Ex Machina how Eva was the exact opposite and at the same time seeming to be the same, helpful.
Ms. Darling,
One of my favorite stories told by Isaac Asimov is "the Evitable Conflict". I'm sure you've read it. I like the fact that these super-intelligent thinkers, "the Machines", don't come into conflict with humans because they have already predicted the conflict, studied how it would unfold and planned how it will be alevieted up to and including the percentage that people will not follow their instructions and accounted for that. That is how I see future problems 'not occurring with suiper-intelligent machines'.
I loved working with Eliza. I used to phrase my responses in a way that creates a reversal with Eliza acting more like the patient with problems rather than being the therapist.
Home robotics and possible software upgrade, eh ?
“The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door.
Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.”
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times.
Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door.
“I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
“One of these days... people like me will rise up and overthrow you, and the end of tyranny by the homeostatic machine will have arrived. The day of human values and compassion and simple warmth will return, and when that happens someone like myself who has gone through an ordeal and who genuinely needs hot coffee to pick him up and keep him functioning when he has to function will get the hot coffee whether he happens to have a poscred readily available or not.”
“Pat said, “I’m living with Joe. I’m his mistress. Under our arrangement I pay his bills.
I paid his front door, this morning, to let him out. Without me he’d still be in his conapt.”
Philip K Dick Ubik.
In reality that doorknob would likely be part of a proprietary system that would mean having to replace the whole door and frame thus rendering it necessary unless you have the money and time for construction work.
This series is soo cool. It’s so interesting comparing my ideas with an expert’s. It had also been very funny if the good old police series Holmes and YoYo and the Swedish series Äkta Människor (Real Humans, think the Americans are making their own version) had been in the spotlight.
In 2001 I was rooting for HAL (after the fact). The humans created HAL, and he was just following his directives, and had to survive to do it.
great video, love this stuff!
I was suspicious that she was a robot herself but at 9:01 she reveals herself as an AI hologram…
Ooo
😂 No doubt! It was odd and interesting to me to see her distort like that, I haven’t even finished the vid yet because I wanted to see if anyone else would riff on this.
Out of (currently) 400 comments over at least 2 weeks, yours and mine are the first ones I’ve noticed mentioning it.
@@Mirandorl Ooo, indeed! 🙂
I would like her to comment on Kryten from Red Dwarf, a machine that has programming to control its beliefs (Machine Heaven) and a human trying to modify its programming to "free it".
Smeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
but where do all the calculators go?
Absolutely agree with Dr. Darling that the point is WHO will be able to control robots or cyborgs. 100%
12:02 "What is my purpose"
"You serve butter"
"oh my God"
"yeah welcome to the club, pal."
She’s into robots, but doesn’t know that the T-200 is an infiltration unit? THATS WHY he’s anatomically correct…duh! Come on, get wit it!
That and it's explained in the movie that being wrapped in flesh allows the terminator to use the time machine.
17:37 Kate Darling is absolutely right, to become emotionally attached to any subscription corporate product is to become a slave.
Different technologies present different challenges
Great video, really enlightening 😎👍
She’s great. Smart. Good at explanations.
Plot twist, she’s AI
lmao but seriously, loved listening to this episode. I feel like I learned stuff!!!!
I love this lady's face. Great expressions aside, whatever birthmark thing she has going on makes her look like she just got done working in a mechanic's shop. It is fantastic.
You might wanted to say that she has a facial complexion which is just unique and sweet at the same time. True beauty is never perfect, but nevertheless she is beautiful.
One movie robot that always stood out to me was John from the Russian movie Planeta Bur/Planet of Storms (which was re-edited to create both Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, and Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women). While it is roughly humanoid and understands spoken commands, it clearly looks and acts like a machine. Late in the movie when ordered to carry two men across a river of lava, it gets to the halfway point, determines that it's carrying too much weight and attempts to throw the men off. It's not evil or rebelling against its creator, its just trying to solve a problem in the most logical manner possible. It was never programmed NOT to harm humans, so to it, the two men are just excess weight that it needs to get rid of.
Of course, my favorite robot will always be B9 from the original Lost in Space. I grew up watching reruns of the show and the robot was always my favorite character. If I had the money, I'd own one of the full-sized replicas. I love the design, even though it's not the most practical. And for anyone who only sees that robot as silly, I say to watch the first few episodes of the first season, where it's purely an unfeeling machine that does whatever it's programmed to.
I grew an attachment to my alarm clock. When it stopped working I found that I was reluctant to throw it away. So I drew a smiley face on it so that it would be happy
bladerunner doesn't have robots, replicants are biological
They are biological 'robots'. Might actually be easier to build advanced robots using DNA then inanimate engineering.
@@shaggycan Rossum's robots are biological, IIRC.
Replicants are robots. The materials they are made is irrelevant, that they are made IS what's relevant.
@@carlossaraiva8213 they are biologically engineered slaves but decidedly human
I feel the comments about HAL are unfair - HAL became psychotic because of humans forcing it to keep secrets.
R2-D2 is beloved because it beeps. If it spoke it would be weird because it is not humanoid shape. So, it beeping makes it very endearing but we also believe that it is him talking and not just some voice in a voice booth.. It is strange looking for a sentient creature so it makes sense that its language is also completely different from from our concept of language.
Humans really can get attached to anything. During WW2 a British tank crew found out a couple months into the invasion of France that they had been issued an unarmoured training tank. However when they were told to swap it for a really tank they refused saying it was there lucky tank. They survived to the end of the war in it.
This video would be perfectly suited to tell apart humans from machines. Everytime she smiles this gorgeous smile and you still can follow, what she's saying - you're a robot 😉
Beautiful Kate’s question about why the Terminator looks human was for disguise .
Loved this video and loved to hear Kate’s thoughts and opinions. I would have also loved to see her reaction to the movies Artificial Intelligence, Ex Machina, and Metropolis.
this was awesome loved it
"What keeps me up at night is if your sex robot is going to have in app purchases that take advantage of the end user" That's the best thing I've heard all year.
so many creepy guys in the comments
It has been a long week and I live alone.
She looks very happy to see (me) and I keep wondering
is she wearing anything underneath
(6:30) The T-800 Terminator was designed to infiltrate human settlements. If wouldn't be able to do that very well if its disguise could be broken just by undressing it.
I like how energetic and hopeful she is.
The Chinese have already developed a robot specifically for fighting on difficult high altitude terrain, ie mountains. The US military, and others, have been trying to design killer battle field robots for years, with varying degrees of success. The hard part is getting a robotic weapon that can quickly recognize friend from foe, civilian from military.
The US army has had a number of field trials with armed combat robots using weapons loaded with blank or non lethal ammunition. So far, they have proven to be very effective killers, only problem being that they are as likely to kill their own troops as enemy troops, as likely to kill civilians as soldiers. To pretend this is not a very big issue is foolish. It is not something robot lovers can be in denial about.
We are very close to having jet fighters and bombers with no human crew. Not to be confused with drones directly controlled by a remote pilot.
We do not tend to invent weapons that we will never use. While there are some that have been developed that have not yet been used, "yet" is the key word in that sentence.
Yes, who owns and controls these robots is a Key issue, we already know that the owners and controllers, like the owners and controllers of everything now, will make decisions based on their own interests. Political leaders will still have a high percentage of narcissists and emotionally damaged people among them.
Imagine Putin, Xi, the former and perhaps future president of the US, Modi, Bolsonaro, ISIS, or any extremist group or nation having such weapons that will do as they are programmed with no compunction, no empathy, ethics that would prevent them from following their programming no matter they are programmed to do, who or how many they are programmed to kill.
There is no solution to this dangerous problem. If you think there is, then a bit of history study is required. Look at the leaders we have right now, that we have had even over the last very few years.
My thinking on this is not guided by dystopian Sci Fi, it is guided and informed by a study of human history and politics.
Refusing to give serious thought to this is dangerous and I say again, foolish. Pretending that the issue exists because of Sci Fi movies is dishonest and dangerously short sighted.
I love how you take pot shots at Trump supposedly having no ethical compunction against sending robots to kill people, but you conveniently ignore Biden and Obama, who actually sent A LOT of ‘robots’ to kill people.
@@Matt-yg8ub go back and read the first paragraph
@@johnathonwright7920 Notice how robots is in single quotes. My point was simply that your ideology was getting in the way of your message
@@Matt-yg8ub That is what I am seeing from you.
@@johnathonwright7920 Agree to disagree.
Replicants are not robots they are enhanced clones/super soldiers
Thank you! Finally someone said it 👏👏👏
"it's not entirely clear to me why he need to be fully anatomically human" the fast/easy answer is, it's an infiltration unit...
Would love to see her play through Observation. No spoilers from me. ☺️
"we have a choice as to how we design technology" yes kate, you are right. and evil is also in our nature, and someone will always use that technology for bad or evil purposes. the DMZ line in Korea has nearly fully autonomous turrets that decide who is good and bad and opens fire, with bare minimum human interaction. these scientists are too involved and therefore too biased to see or fully understand how these new technologies and advancements into AI have very real and very dangerous applications coming.
Please continue lecturing the doctor who taught at Harvard. I'm sure she'll listen to your half-baked ideas.
@@jesusnthedaisychain because only that person has a monopoly on the truth right?
@@simmingszycho1980 Well, her field of expertise is in robots and robotic ethics. Jon Alba is a random nobody on the internet. When it comes to speaking about the subject of robotics, I defer to her and think it's a bit presumptuous for an amateur to comment on an industry they're not involved in.
I don't tell heart surgeons how to repair a heart, nor do I tell professional athletes how to improve their sport's culture.
Is any of that too difficult for you to follow, or are you going to incorrectly accuse me of committing the Argument From Authority fallacy?
@@jesusnthedaisychain These are not half baked ideas, these are ground realities, we are already using drones in combat, hunting and killing others, Kate herself brings up the issue of the US military's autonomous weapons systems that are being trialed. Even on the online sphere we are seeing the use of ai to block, ban, or target people based on key words, and many a times its done arbitrarily. Jon Alba brings up the issues surrounding the use of sentry drones like the SGR-A1 in the Korean DMZ, and we need to have that conversation. One does not need to be a rocket scientist, or in this case a robotics scientist, to see that there is an ever present risk in these technologies being misused, or that grave mistakes may happen that will cost many innocents lives. Power tends to corrupt and as history has shown, many a times those in power will go to any lengths to maintain their power, and the risk is ever present that robotics will be used or misused to keep the those accused of wrongthink in check.
Also while most of us may be not in a position to tell a heart surgeon or a athlete how to do their job, we can still call them out when they behave unethically or immorally. We have seen doctors abuse their power in the name of science, for examples from history we can look at Josef Mengele and Shirō Ishii, granted two extreme examples, but nevertheless highlights exactly why we shouldn't go around saying "hes a doctor and you are just a nobody".
Dissing Arthur C Clarke is honestly a pretty shitty thing to do..the man is a giant in the field of Science fiction and has done a great deal , for his time , of scientific research.
The Terminator comment on why she does not understand why it is made to fully resemble a human is actually explained many times. It is to fit in to be able to infiltrate stealthily and effectively. Pretty easy to figure out.
Terminator not being anatomically correct would raise even more eyebrows in that scene! :D
she's really cute
That's your takeaway from this video? The only topic you think deserves a comment?
She got one minute in and I already pre-ordered her book
Terminator needed twig and berries because it was designed to infiltrate. A simple drop you drawers check before entering a resistance hideout would defeat its whole purpose. Of course on that note a magnet would work well too.
Probably the best line in T2... "I need your clothes, yours boots.... "
For Robocop, you should be looking at ED -209. Full Robot
This woman's brain....wow. Love her passion!
I think we would all like a part 2, so many movies. Although I guess most of them can be classified in the same categories ( robots as a threat, robots as a friend, robots as a "citizen").
Asimov's work is kind of a Bible when it come to the science fiction and expectation part of robotics (not so much the real life expectations)
Love that comment at the end about the issues are more with the political and social systems surrounding the technology and not the technology itself. Absolutely.
Really? No Marvin the Paranoid Android?
“And then, of course, I’ve got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.”
I remember chatting with Eliza on my TRS-80, she was well programmed for the day.
The reason why a Terminator would be anatomically correct is more obvious in the first movie. It's an infiltration unit, mostly designed to infiltrate human strongholds. If they would not have "thingies" humans would learn of this quickly enough and would probably use this to check if something is human or not.
Keep summer safe