Slashdot Mirror
How Do People Respond To Being Touched By a Robot?
An anonymous reader writes "You know it's coming, and for the forever-alone crowd, not soon enough: robots that physically interact with humans. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have found in a study that people generally had a positive response toward being touched by a benevolent robotic nurse, but that their perception of the robot's intent made a significant difference. 'Even though the robot touched people in the same way,' said a team lead, 'if people thought the robot was doing that to clean them, versus doing that to comfort them, it made a significant difference in ... whether they found that contact favorable or not.'"
There is something about a genuine human touch that is seen as empathetic, as an act of kindness. Even if we know it's disingenuous, or that it's part of a person's job, there is still something in the back of our minds that responds to it as a genuine human connection.
Robots, on the other hand, can NEVER be empathetic or kind--and we know this without a doubt. There touch isn't a connection and never can be. That introduces a creep factor that no amount of programming or human emulation can ever fix. Because we know they have no base morality or emotion and are incapable of empathy, robots will always inherently creep people out at best, or scare the shit out of them at worst.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Good touch or bad touch?
Blank until
Lawyer: "Now little Timmy, on this doll, show me where the robot touched you."
Orwell was an optimist.
If life imitates art then we already know the answer.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
"'if people thought the robot was doing that to clean them, versus doing that to comfort them, it made a significant difference"
What if they're doing it to give you a wienie rub?
die "til we both break down and cry" if($honesty > $toomuch);
One that just vibrates?
IIRC that question has already been sufficiently studied (and answered) in the beginning of the 20th century (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrator_(sex_toy)#History ).
I wager that there is a giant segment of slashdot that is dreaming of a day when a robotic Princess Leia or (insert scifi woman here) will be a reality. So, that's probably a enthusiastic "YES, please more touching"
and my eyes focus again I'll let you know.
Where do I sign up for the Robot Touching research study?
I'll tell you what I'd do.
... in hentai.
Have gnu, will travel.
I have a pretty good idea how Chuck Norris would respond.
Are you sure? I mean, can't a compassionate programmer have programmed the robot to be compassionate to a human for him, by proxy?
I mean, if you see the robot as an agent of a programmer who wants to help you, what's so creepy about that?
--PeterM
It says that in both the case of a human and a robot, the patient prefers the touching to be for a practical purpose such as cleaning and not to provide comfort.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Robots still don't have enough "common sense" (i.e. reliable prediction of consequences) for this. That's really hard, but there's steady progress. Also, all-round sensing on all surfaces, the equivalent of skin touch, is needed.
As someone who's worked with both autonomous robots and horses, it's worth comparing the two. Horses are moderately safe to be around once you can read horse body language and understand the safe positions around a horse. Some horses are safe around untrained people (this is teachable, and I once owned an ex-police horse who'd been explicitly taught it.). With most horses, you will get banged into once in a while, not deliberately, but just because a half-ton animal moved a bit.
Horses are not safe around people who can't move. Kids and ponies mix well well, but that's because the kids have fast reflexes and aren't usually hurt by falls and minor blows. It's not because the ponies are cautious.
We aren't even up to the pony level of robot safety yet.
"Now, show me on the doll where the robot touched you..."
You mean when your Roomba bumps into your foot?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If strippers can fake empathy when they touch, then why can't robots? Are you saying robots are dumber than strippers???
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Show me on this doll where the robot touched you...
Time to dig out that movie again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_2000
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You'll find that people prefer the NON-empathetic touch of both the robot nurse *and* the human nurse over attempting to be comforted. The human nurse falls into uncanny valley just as easily as the robot does because neither of them are considered genuine.
This is exciting; I never plooked a tiny chrome-plated machine that looks like a magical pig with marital aids stuck all over it such as yourself before.
Can a dildo be viewed as some kind of robot? if yes then OH YEAH!
have been getting pleasure from the ouch of machines for years.
"Of course. Women who obtain sexual ecstasy with mechanical assistance always tend to feel guilty." - HM-tMP
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are they going to be TSA agents?
I don't know about you guys but I have a strict rule on touching. Don't do it unless you are female and we have chemistry. Otherwise I'll give you a It's Always Sunny Mac-style punch to the face. 18 inches of personal space, respect it.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
.... we're all just robots, anyway.
But seriously, our responses to stimuli are mostly programmed anyway. What's the difference? We think of ourselves as "flesh and blood" and "original" when we're all just a pile of impulses telling us how to respond to a situation.
I am a Robot sent by Ishiguro, to guide you in this cross roads of your life. Your need to stop reading slashdot, and make your self a sandwich.
Wait... stop... don't touch me there... i am not programmed for that sort of relations... aieee!!!!
women like dildo's. Nuff said
You can find video of this story here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKysoWzfZSI
nt
Ponies!!!
That is all.
I was going to say ... I almost treat my Roomba like a person. I feel bad when the floor is super-dirty, and I get mad at it when I have to stand where it's cleaning, and it makes a bee-line for my feet ...
I definitely don't think it's impossible for people to have feelings toward a robot, even when they know it's fake.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154416/pleasure-model
Thank you, the Syrian Cybernetics Corporation.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Uncle Skynet is sleeping over today!
You don't begin to realize how naÃve you are, nor, can you as long as you hold your belief system to be 'the objective reality'.
First lets look at the type of flesh and blood human known as the sociopath. By definition, they have no ability to feel compassion and have no understanding of other's emotions. In some cases, they have no idea what emotions are like. They may have some emotions, but there is a complete disconnect between those emotions and understanding what causes them -- let alone what might cause those emotions in another person. The worst part about this -- ANY human could be a sociopath, *acting* like a human. Yet you blindly have programmed yourself to respond to any human "in the back of your mind, as though it was a genuine human connection. But in these cases, you might as well be connecting with a brick.
Second, lets look at connections with animals. Animals have no understand of human emotions. Yet the more the animal 'emulates' human behavior, the more we find those animals 'comforting'. A huge body of evidence shows that humans respond to 'pets', especially dogs, much like they would a human. This has been measured as by objective standards like changes in heart rate, blood pressure, rate of healing, and longevity, yet clearly, the animal lacks human understanding. Biological research on animals shows that they are incapable of having or understanding the higher level though processes that engender various emotional states or anything about what it is like to be a human. Yet the touch of animals affects humans (and vice-versa) in profound ways. In some studies the touch of animals was found to be * superior * to the touch of humans in many situations -- even though the animal possesses nothing of what you would call a 'human element' in its connection.
Dogs and a few other animals are used, especially, in nursing homes and homes for disabled humans for 'therapy' purposes. They measurably increase the quality of life and health of those humans they interact with much as would contact with a caring human would -- yet the animal can't really care like a human and in many cases is completely indiscriminate. Often they are brought into care settings to interact with patients on an "unfeeling", "inhumane", "contract" basis -- because these 'inhuman creatures' respond to the human's emotional state -- they can't understand or empathize with it, but they respond to it. Most humans respond to this.
Interestingly, not every animal (or dog) is suitable for being a therapy animal (ruling out those who are dangerous). Some are just too clueless around humans or not human-centered enough. They wouldn't 'connect' with the humans in the way that is desired. Perhaps they are more interested in 'food' or other 'dogs'...it's almost entirely based on training -- i.e. their programming, that makes them suitable or not.
In many cases, humans in care centers respond better to interactions with animals (even if they are not their own, exclusive pet), because the animal doesn't judge and is incapable of judging (discrimination) based on human defects. They don't 'sneer', or 'force a smile'...EVER. They don't understand the concepts or reasons why humans would do so. As a result, in many cases, they are superior in their ability to interact with some classes of disabled people -- especially those with type