ii

iiii

iii Research Methodologies

ii i

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI ASSIGNMENT #3
ii i

Name:
iiiiiii iiiii Abdullah Abbas
i

Roll No: i

iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii17581556-026

Department:

iiiiiiiiiiiI iiiiiii iii BS-IT-17A

Submitted To: i

iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii Ma’am Laraib Abbas

i i

i
 i Robotics: Automation from Love to War
i i i i i

Structure iDiagram:

Abstract

This iarticle iinvestigates ithe isocial isignificance iof irobotics iby istudying irobotics idevelopments
iin ifive idifferent iareas: ithe ihome, ihealth icare, itraffic, ithe ipolice iforce, iand ithe iarmy. iOur
isociety iaccepts ithe iuse iof irobots ito iperform idull, idangerous, iand idirty iindustrial ijobs. iBut inow
ithat irobotics iis imoving iout iof ithe ifactory, ithe irelevant iquestion iis ihow ifar ido iwe iwant iwith
ithe iautomation iof icare ifor ichildren iand ithe ielderly, iof ikilling iterrorists, ior iof imaking ilove?
iThis iliterature ireview iattempts ito iprovide ian iengaged ibut isober i(non-speculative) iinsight iinto
ithe isocial iissues iraised iby ithe inew irobotics:which irobot itechnologies iare icoming; iwhat iare
ithey icapable iof; iand iwhich iethical iand iregulatory iquestions iwill ithey iconsequently iraise?

Introduction

Until irecently, irobots iwere imainly iused iin ifactories ifor iautomating iproduction iprocesses. iIn ithe
i1970s, ithe iappearance iof ifactory irobots iled ito imuch idebate ion itheir iinfluence ion iemployment.
iMass iunemployment iwas ifeared. iAlthough ithis idid inot icome ito ipass, irobots ihave iradically
ichanged ithe iway iwork iis idone iin icountless ifactories. iThis iarticle ifocuses ion ihow ithe iuse iof
irobotics ioutside ithe ifactory iwill ichange iour ilives iover ithe icoming idecades. iNew irobotics ino
ilonger iconcerns ionly ifactory iapplications, ibut ialso ithe iuse iof irobotics iin ia imore icomplex iand
iunstructured ioutside iworld, ithat iis, ithe iautomation iof inumerous ihuman iactivities, isuch ias
icaring ifor ithe isick, idriving ia icar, imaking ilove, iand ikilling ipeople. i
New irobotics, itherefore, iliterally iconcerns iautomation ifrom ilove ito iwar. iThe imilitary isector
iand ithe icar iindustry iare iparticularly istrong idrivers ibehind ithe idevelopment iof ithis inew
iinformation itechnology. i
They ihave ialways ibeen iso. iThe icar iindustry itook ithe ilead iwith ithe iintroduction iof ithe
iindustrial irobot ias iwell ias iwith ithe irobotization iof icars. iThe imilitary, iespecially iin ithe iUnited
iStates, istood iat ithe iforefront iof iartificial iintelligence idevelopment, iand inow iartificial
iintelligence iis idriven iby icomputers iand ithe iInternet. iMore iprecisely, irobotics imakes iuse iof ithe
iexisting iICT iinfrastructure iand ialso iimplies ia icontinued itechnological ievolution iof ithese
inetworks. iThrough irobotics,
the iInternet ihas igained, ias iit iwere, i‘senses iand ihands iand ifeet’.
The inew irobot iis ithus inot iusually ia iself-sufficient isystem. iTo iunderstand ithe ipossibilities iand
iimpossibilities iof ithe inew irobotics, iit iis itherefore iimportant ito irealize ithat irobots iare iusually
isupported iby ia inetwork iof iinformation itechnologies, isuch ias ithe iInternet, iand ithus iare ioften
ipresented ias inetworked irobots.
New irobotics iis idriven iby itwo ilong-term iengineering iambitions. iFirstly, ithere iis ithe
iengineering idream iof ibuilding imachines ithat ican imove iand iact iautonomously iin icomplex iand
iunstructured ienvironments. iSecondly, ithere iis ithe idream iof ibuilding imachines ithat iare icapable
iof isocial ibehavior iand ihave ithe icapacity ifor imoral idecision imaking.
The inotion ithat ithis imay ibe itechnologically ipossible iwithin ia ifew idecades iis ireferred ito ias ithe
i‘strong iAI’ iview i(AI: iartificial iintelligence). iIt iis ihighly idoubtful ithat ithis iwill iindeed ihappen.
iAt ithe isame itime, ithe i‘strong iAI’ iview iprevails iin ithe imedia iand iis ihighly iinfluential iin ithe
iformulation iand ipublic ifinancing iof iIT iresearch. iIt iis ibeyond idispute ithat ithis itechnology iwill
istrongly iinfluence ithe ivarious ipractices iresearched. iThis ialso iputs imany isocietally iand
ipolitically isensitive iissues ion ithe ipolitical iand ipublic iagenda. iFor iexample, iaccording ito iPeter
iSinger, ithe irobotization iof ithe iarmy iis i‘the ibiggest irevolution iwithin ithe iarmed iforces isince
ithe iatom ibomb’. i
The irobotization iof icars, itoo, iappears ito ihave ibegun icausing ilarge itechnological iand icultural
ichanges iin ithe ifield iof imobility. iNetherlands iOrganization ifor iApplied iScientific iResearch
i(TNO) idescribes ithe iintroduction iof icar irobots ias ia i“gradual irevolutionary idevelopment”.
iThrough irobots, ithe ipolice imay ienjoy ian iexpansion iof ithe icurrent irange iof iapplications ifor
isurveillance itechnologies. iHome iautomation iand irobotics imake itelecare ipossible iand iwill
iradically ichange ihealth icare ipractice iover ithe icoming iyears. iFinally, iwe ipoint ito ithe ifact ithat
iover ithe ipast iyears, i‘simple’ irobotics itechnologies ihave igiven ithe ientertainment iindustry ia
inew iface. iWe iwill icontinue ito ibe ipresented iwith isuch itechnological igadgets iin ithe icoming
iperiod.
Types iOf iRobots
1. Home iRobot

In ithis isection, iwe iwill idiscuss itwo itypes iof ihome irobots: ithe ifunctional ihousehold irobot iand
ithe ientertainment irobot. iAbout ientertainment irobots, iwe ihave imade ia idistinction ibetween ithe
isocial iinteraction irobot iand ithe iphysical iinteraction irobot.

1.1Household iRobots

About ihousehold irobots, iwe isee ia ihuge igap ibetween ithe ihigh iexpectations iconcerning
imultifunctional, igeneral-purpose irobots ithat ican icompletely itake iover ihousework iand ithe
iactual iperformance iof ithe icurrently iavailable irobots, iand irobots ithat iwe iexpect iin ithe icoming
iyears. iIn i1964, iMeredith iWooldridge iThring ipredicted ithat iby iaround i1984 ia irobot iwould ibe
ideveloped ithat iwould itake iover imost ihousehold itasks iand ithat ithe ivast imajority iof ihousewives
iwould iwant ito ibe ientirely irelieved iof ithe idaily iwork iin ithe ihousehold, isuch ias icleaning ithe
ibathroom, iscrubbing ifloors, icleaning ithe ioven, idoing ilaundry, iwashing idishes, idusting iand
isweeping, iand imaking ibeds. iThring itheorized ithat ian iinvestment iof iUS$5 imillion iwould ibe
isufficient ifor ideveloping isuch ia ihousehold irobot iwithin iten iyears. iDespite ia imultitude iof
iinvestments, ithe imultifunctional ihome irobot iis istill inot iwithin ireach.During ithe ilast iten iyears,
ithe ifirst irobots ihave imade itheir ientry iinto ithe ihousehold, ibut ithey iare iall i‘one-trick iponies’ ior
imonomaniacal: ispecialized imachines ithat ican ionly iperform ione itask. iAccording ito iBill iGates:
i‘we imay ibe ion ithe iverge iof ia inew iera iwhen ithe iPC iwill iget iup ifrom ithe idesktop iand iallow
ius ito isee, ihear, itouch iand imanipulate iobjects iin iplaces iwhere iwe iare inot iphysically ipresent.’

1.2Amusement iRobots

1.2.1 Expectations

It iseems ithat ientertainment irobots ido imeet iexpectations iand isocial ineeds. iCompared ito ithe
ihousehold irobot, iexpectations iconcerning ithe ientertainment irobot iare imuch iless ipre-defined.
iThe igoals iare ijust icommunicating, iplaying, iand irelaxing. iThe ineed iis inot iset ibut iarises iin ithe
iinteraction.
We isee ian iage-old idream icome itrue: idevices ithat iresemble ihumans ior ianimals iand ican iinteract
iwith ius. iExamples iare ithe idog iAIBO i(a irobot icompanion ishaped ilike ia idog), ithe ifluffy icuddly
itoy iFur iby, ithe ifunny iMy iKeep ion i(a ilittle iyellow idancing irobot ithat ican idance ito ithe irhythm
iof imusic) iand iall ifour iinvite ius ito iplay iout isocial iand iphysical iinteraction. iPeople ibecome
iattached ito ithe irobot iand iattribute ihuman ifeatures ito iit. iThis iis icalled i‘anthropomorphism’, ii.e.
iattributing ihuman itraits iand ibehavior’s ito inon-human isubjects. iPeople ieven iassign irobots ia
ipsychological iand imoral istatus, iwhich iwe ipreviously ionly iattributed ito iliving ihumans.
iResearch ishows ithat iyoung ichildren iare imuch imore iattached ito itoy irobots ithan ito idolls ior
iteddy ibears, iand ieven iconsider ithem ias ifriends.

1.2.2 Ethical iand iRegulatory iIssues

The ientertainment irobot iis imodeled ion ithe iprinciple iof ianthropomorphism. iSince iusers iare
istrongly iinclined ito ianthropomorphism, irobots iquickly igenerate ifeelings. iThis iraises iall isorts
iof isocial iand iethical iquestions, iparticularly ithe iquestion iof iwhat iinfluence ientertainment irobots
ihave ion ithe idevelopment iof ichildren iand iour ihuman irelationships. iSharkey iand iSharkey
iespecially iquestion inanny irobots ifor ichildren, ias ithey ithink iit iwill idamage itheir iemotional iand
isocial idevelopment iand iwill ilead ito ibonding iproblems iin ichildren. iSparrow ihas ialready
iexpressed iworries iabout itoy irobots iremaining ias i‘simulacra’ ifor itrue isocial iinteraction.
iEmotions iexpressed iby irobots ipromise ian iemotional iconnection, iwhich ithey ican inever igive,
ifor iemotions idisplayed iby irobots iare iindeed imerely iimitations, iand itherein ilies ithe idanger,
iaccording ito iSparrow, i“imitation iis ilikely ito iinvolve ithe ireal iethical idanger ithat iwe iwill
imistake iour icreations ifor iwhat ithey iare inot”.

2. Care iRobot

2.1Expectations

A istaffing ishortage—due ito ifuture iaging—is ioften iinvoked ias ian iargument ifor ideploying
irobotics iin ilong-term icare. iAn iaging ipopulation iis idefined ias ia ipopulation ithat ihas ian iincrease
iin ithe inumber iof ipersons iaged i65 iand iover icompared iwith ithe irest iof ithe ipopulation.
iAccording ito ithe iEuropean iCommission, ithe iproportion iof ithose iaged i65 iand iover iis iprojected
ito irise ifrom i17 i% iin i2010 ito i30 i% iin i2060. iMoreover, iit iis iexpected ithat ipeople iwill ibe iliving
ilonger: ilife iexpectancy iat ibirth iis iprojected ito iincrease ifrom i76.6 iyears iin i2010 ito i84.6 iin
i2060 ifor imales, iand ifrom i82.5 ito i89.1 ifor ifemales. iOne iout iof iten ipeople iaged i65 iand iover
iwill ibe ioctogenarians ior iolder. iThe igrowth iof ithe ivery ioldest igroup iwill iput ipressure ion icare
iservices iand iwill iincrease ithe idemand ifor ivarious iservices ifor ithe ielderly:(1) iassisting ithe
ielderly iand/or itheir icaregivers iin idaily itasks;(2) ihelping ito imonitor itheir ibehavior iand ihealth;
iand i(3)providing icompanionship.
Care-robot idevelopers ihave ihigh iexpectations: iin ithe ifuture, icare irobots iwill itake ithe iworkload
iaway ifrom icaregivers. iHowever, ithe iargument ithat irobots ican isolve istaff ishortages iin ihealth
icare ihas ino ibasis iin ihard ievidence. iInstead iof ireplacing ilabor, ithe ideployment iof icare irobots
irather ileads ito ia ishift iand iredistribution iof iresponsibilities iand itasks iand iforms inew ikinds iof
icare. iDuring ithe inext i10 iyears, icare isupport irobots imay inot iwidely ienter ithe ifield iof icare. iThe
iuse iof icare irobots imust ibe iviewed iprimarily ifrom ithe iperspective iof icurrent idevelopment iand
ideployment iof ihome iautomation i(domotics). iThese ismart itechnologies, iwhich iat ipresent iare
ibeing iincorporated iwidely iinto iour ienvironment, iare ithe iprelude ito ia ifuture ihome iwith irobots.

2.2Ethical iIssues iand iRegulatory iIssues

2.2.1 Care

The iuse iof irobotic itechnologies iin icare iputs iforward ithe iquestion iof ito iwhat iextent ithe icurrent
iand ifuture ihealth icare isystem iwill ihave ispace ito igive iactual icare. iCare iimplies iconcern iabout
ithe iwelfare iof ipeople, ientering iinto ia irelationship iwith ithem, idealing iwith itheir idiscomforts,
iand ifinding ia ibalance ibetween iwhat iis igood ifor ithat iperson iand iwhatever iit iis ithat ithey iare
iasking ifor. iRobots iseem ito ibe ithe iepitome iof ieffective iand iefficient icare: ithe iultimate
irationalization iof ia iconcept ithat iperhaps icannot ibe icaptured iin isensors, ifigures, iand idata. iThe
iuse iof icare irobots irequires ia ivision iof icare ipractice, iand ithe idiscussion ishould ibe iabout iwhat
iexactly iwe imean iby i‘care’, itaking iinto iconsideration iaspects isuch ias ireciprocity, iempathy, iand
iwarmth, iand ithe irole itaken iup iby itechnology.

2.2.2 Fine-Tuning

Developers ishould itake iinto iconsideration ithe iwishes iand ineeds iof icaregivers ias iwell ias ithose
iof icare irecipients iin itheir idesign iprocess. iTechnicians iare itherefore irequired ito imake ia i‘value
isensitive idesign’, ia idesign ithat ialso itakes iinto iaccount ithe iwishes iand ineeds iof idifferent
igroups iof iusers—caregivers ias iwell ias icare irecipients. iBoth iof ithese iusers ishould ibe iinvolved
ias iearly ias ipossible iin ithe idesign iprocess.The iprocess ialso irequires ithe iuse iof ithe-technologies
iand ihome iautomation ifor ifine-tuning iand igetting iclear icoordination iwith iother istakeholders
isuch ias igeneral ipractitioners, ihospitals, inursing ihomes, ihome ihealth iagencies, iinsurance
icompanies, iand ifamily imembers. iThis itakes ius ito ithe ipoint imade iby iVan iOost iand iReed:
iwhen ireflecting ion ideploying icare irobots ione imust inot ifocus ionly ion ithose ipersons idirectly
iinvolved—the ientire isocio-technical icontext imust ialso ibe iexamined.

2.2.3 iPrivacy

In ithe ishort iterm, iethical iissues iplay ia irole iin ihome iautomation. iRegistering iand imonitoring
ithe ibehavior iof icare irecipients iraises iprivacy iissues. iExactly iwhat iinformation iis icollected ion
ithe ipeople ibeing itell imonitored? iWhat idoes ithat idata isay iabout ithe idaily iactivities iwithin ithe
ihousehold? iWho ihas iaccess ito ithe idata ithat iis icollected? iHow ilong iwill ithe idata ibe istored?
iAre ithe icare irecipients iaware iof ithe ifact ithat iinformation iis ibeing icollected iabout ithem? iIs iit
ijustified ito ideploy ithese itechnologies iand idata-gathering imethods iwhen isome ipeople, ifor
iexample, ibecause ithey ihave idementia, iare iunaware iof ithe ipresence iof isuch itechnologies?
iThese iquestions iabout iprivacy ishould ibe itaken iinto iconsideration iby idevelopers iand ipoliticians
iwhen ithey iare iadvocating ithe ideployment iof iboth ihome iautomation iand irobotics. iAccording
ito iBorenstein iand iPearson, ithe idegree iof icontrol ithat ithe icare irecipient ihas iover ithe
iinformation icollected iis iimportant. iWhen ia iperson ihas iactual icontrol iover ithe iinformation
icollected, ithis ienhances ithe iautonomy iof ithat iperson. iThis irequires idevelopers, iright ifrom ithe
ibeginning iof ithe idesign iprocess, ito iconsider ithe iconsequences ifor ithe iprivacy iof itheir irobotic
itechnologies. iThe ichallenge iis ito istrike ia iproper ibalance ibetween ithe iprotection iof iprivacy iand
ithe ineed ito ikeep iliving iat ihome iindependently.

2.2.4 iHuman iDignity

Another iimportant idrawback iput iforward iby iethicists iis ithe ifeared ireduction iin ihuman icontact.
iCare irecipients iwill ino ilonger ihave idirect icontact iwith ihuman icaretakers; ithey iwill ionly ihave
icontact iwith idevices ior iwill ihave iremote icontact, imediated iby itechnology. iThe iincreasing iuse
iof irobots itherefore iraises isocial iissues irelating ito ithe ihuman idignity iof ithe icare irecipient. iHow
irobots iare ideployed iproves ito ibe ia icrucial ipoint. iWhen irobots iare iused ito ireplace ithe
icaregiver, ithere iis ia irisk ithat icare ibecomes idehumanized.

2.2.5 iCompetences iof iCaregivers

In ithe imedium iterm, ithe iincreasing iuse iof icare irobots iputs idemands ion ithe iprofessional iskills
iof icaregivers. iThe iuse iof irobotic itechnologies icreates ia inew icare ipractice iin iwhich ithe
icaregivers iget ia inew irole, iand itheir iduties iand iresponsibilities iwill ishift. iIndeed, iworking iwith
ia ilifting irobot irequires ispecific iskills iof icaregivers: iknowing ihow ito isteer ithe irobot iand ito
ipredict ipotential ifailures. iProviding icare iat ia idistance irequires ithat icaregivers ican idiagnose
iand itell imonitor ipeople ivia ia icomputer ior iTV iscreen iand ican ireassure ia ipatient.

3. Robot iCar

3.1 iExpectations

iAdvanced iDriver iAssistance iSystems i(ADAS) isupport ithe idriver ibut ido inot iyet iallow ifully
iautomated idriving iin itraffic. iThe iapplication iof idriver iassistance isystems iis irapidly ideveloping
iand iis ifully istimulated iby iindustry, iresearch iinstitutions, iand igovernments. iThere iare ihigh
iexpectations iof ithese isystems iregarding isafety ieffects. iThe iavailable idriver iassistance isystems
iare iprobably ionly iharbingers iof ia imajor idevelopment ithat iwill ilead ito iprogressive iautomation
iof ithe idriving itask. iThis itrend ican inow ibe iobserved. iSystems ithat iin iprinciple ionly iadvised ior
iwarned, ias iin ialerting ithe idriver iif ithey iwere ispeeding ior iunintentionally iveering ioff ithe
iroadway, iare ibeing ifurther ideveloped iinto isystems ithat iintervene, icausing ithe icar ito ireturn ito
ithe icorrect ilane iwhen ithe idriver iunintentionally ileaves ithe iroadway. iAlso, icar imanufacturers
iespecially icompete iwith ieach iother iin iterms iof icomfort iand isafety, ibecause ithere iis inot imuch
imore ithat ican ibe idone ito iimprove ithe iquality iof icars

3.2Ethical iand iRegulatory iIssues

3.2.1 Acceptance

In iseveral iEuropean iresearch iprojects, iresearch iis ibeing icarried iout iinto ithe iacceptance iof ithe
irobotic icontrol iof ithe icar—and iin iparticular ithe iacceptance iof idriver isupport iand icooperative
isystems, isuch ias iin ithe iprojects iEuropean iField iOperational iTest ion iActive iSafety iSystems
i(EuroFOT) iand iAdaptive iIntegrated iDriver-vehicle iInterface i(AIDE). iIt ifocuses ion itwo
iquestions: i(1) ihow ido icar iuser ifeel iabout itechnology itaking iover ithe idriving itask iand i(2)will
imotorists iaccept iinterference ifrom ithese isystems? iIn iprinciple, idrivers iare ihesitant iwhen
isystems itaking iover idriving itasks, ibecause ithey ioften isense iinitial idiscomfort iin ia imachine-
dominated ienvironment. iHowever, iaccording ito ia irecent iCisco ireport ion ithe iconsumer
iexperience iwithin ithe iautomotive iindustry, i57 i% iof iglobal iconsumers itrust iautonomous icars. i
iMoreover, iacceptance igrows ias imotorists ihave idriven ithem iand ihave icome ito itrust ithe
isystems. iThe iRESPONSE iproject ishowed ithat ifor ia isuccessful imarket iintroduction iof idriver
iassistance isystems, ithe ifocus ishould ibe ion iconvincing ithe ipublic ithat ithe isystems iare ieffective
iand isafe. iBesides, idrivers iwant ito ihave ithe iability ito ipersonally iintervene iand ito iturn ioff ithe
isystem.

3.2.2 iSkilling iVersus ide-Skilling

The ifact ithat imany idrivers icome ito irely ion idriver iassistance isystems imakes ithem iless ialert.
iAlso, ithese isystems ican ilead ito ide-skilling, iso ithat idriving iability imay ideteriorate. iThis ican
ilead ito idangerous isituations iat itimes iwhen ithe i(semi-autonomous) icar idoes inot irespond
iautonomously iand icontrol ishould ibe itaken iover iby ia idriver iwho ihas ibecome iless iroad
iknowledge. iConsequently, idriver iassistance isystems irequire inew idriver iskills. iAttention imust
ibe ipaid ito ithis, iand ia ipossible isolution icould ibe ithat idriving iwith idriver iassistance isystems
ibecomes ia imandatory ipart iof ithe idriving ilicense.

3.2.3 iThe iBetter iDriver

Many iresearchers isee ithe iautonomous icar ias ia imethod iof ipreventing itraffic iaccidents, ifor
iconscious ior iunconscious ihuman ierror iis iinvolved iin ialmost iall itraffic iaccidents. iSeveral
istudies ishow ithat imore ithan i90 i% iof iall iaccidents ioccur idue ito ihuman ierror iand ithat ionly i5–
10%are ithe iresult iof ideficiencies iin ithe ivehicle ior ithe idriving ienvironment iAutonomous
ivehicles ihave icontinuous icomplete iattention iand ifocus, ikeep iwithin ithe ispeed ilimit, ido inot iget
idrunk, iand iabstain ifrom iaggressive ibehavior, iand iso ion. iAlso, ihumans iare ino imatch ifor ithe
itechnology iwhen iit icomes ito ireaction itime iand ialertness, iboth iin iroutine isituations iand iin
icritical isituations.

3.2.4 iSafety

The igreatest ibenefit iof ithese isystems, isought iby ithe iEuropean iCommission iin iparticular, iis iin
itraffic isafety. iThe iCommission iaims ito ihalve ithe itotal inumber iof iroad ideaths iin ithe iEuropean
iUnion iby i2020 ias icompared ito i2010. iThis iis ia ivery iambitious igoal, iwhich iin iour iopinion ican
ionly ibe iachieved iby irigorous imeasures isuch ias imandating iseveral idriver iassistance isystems.
iThe iEuropean iCommission ihas ialready imade ithe iAnti-lock ibraking isystem, ielectronic istability
icontrol, iand ieCall i(a iwarning isystem ithat iautomatically ialerts iemergency iservices iin icase iof
ian iaccident) icompulsory.

3..2.5 iSecurity

Cooperative isystems ihave ito ideal iwith ithe isecurity iof ithe iinformation iand icommunication
inetwork. iCooperative idriving, ifor iexample, inecessitates iboth ihardware ifor icommunication iand
ia ilink ito ithe iengine imanagement isystem iso ithat ithe ivehicle ican icontrol iits ispeed. iA
idisadvantage iis ithat ithe isystem iis ifragile iand ithe icar icould ibecome ithe ivictim iof ihacking
iattempts. iAmerican iresearchers iat ithe iCenter ifor iAutomotive iEmbedded iSystems iSecurity
i(CAESS) ihave ishown ithat iit iis ipossible ito ihijack iand itake iover ifull icontrol iof ithe icar.

3.2.6 iAutonomous iCar

Fully iautonomous idriving iwill inot ibe ia irealistic ipicture ibefore i2020, ieven ithough ithis iis
ipredicted iby iboth iGeneral iMotors iand iGoogle. iHowever, igiven ithe idevelopments iin ithe ifield
iof icar irobotics, iit iseems iinevitable ithat ithe iautonomous icar iwill ibecome icommonplace. iA
imore ilikely iestimate iis ithat ithese isystems iwill ifunction iby iaround i2030. iThe ilaunch iwill
iprobably itake iplace ivia itaxi isystems, ias ioutlined iby ithe iGerman iresearchers iin ithe iAuto
iNomos iproject, iand iit iwill ibe ipossible ito icall ian iautonomous icar ion ia imobile iphone iand iit
iwill ibe iwaiting ifor iits ipassenger iat istations iand itheatres.

4. Police iRobot
4.1 iExpectations

Within ithe iglobal iexpansion iin irobotics, ithe ipolice idomain iis ian iimportant iapplication. iThis
iaspect iis ilargely ifuelled iby idevelopments iin ithe ifield iof imilitary irobots. iIn ithe ifield iof ipolice
irobots, ithe iUSA iand iJapan iare imaking iclear iheadway icompared ito iEurope. iWe imay iconclude
ithat ithe iapplication iof irobotics iwithin ithe ipolice idomain iis istill iin ian iexperimental, iexploratory
iphase. iTwo iapplications iare icentral: icarrying iout isurveillance iand idisarming iexplosives. iIn
imost icountries, ithe ipolice ihave iseveral iground iand iairborne irobots ioutfitted iwith ismart
icameras. iOver ithe ipast idecade, ia ilarge iincrease iin ismart icameras ihas ibeen iobserved iin ipublic
iareas, iand ithis iincrease ihas ibeen ireinforced, isince i2001, iby ia ihigher ipriority ibeing igiven ito
iinvestigation iand ilaw ienforcement iby ithe ipolice. iIn iJapan, iwe isee iexperiments iwith irobots iin
ithe istreet; ithey iare icalled i‘urban isurveillance irobots’ ior i‘urban irobots’, iand ithey ican itake iover
isome iof ithe iresponsibilities iof ia ipolice iofficer, isuch ias iidentifying icriminal ior isuspicious
ibehavior. iand iproviding ia iservice ito ithe ipublic.

4.2 iEthical iand iRegulatory iIssues

4.2.1 iPrivacy iVersus iSafety

A itricky iissue iwith irobots iand iintelligent icameras iis ithe iviolation iof iprivacy. iIt iis ipossible ithat
iin ithe ishort iterm ithe igovernment iwill imonitor iour idaily iactivities i24 ih ia iday ifor ithe isake iof
isafety. iThis icreates itension ibetween iensuring iprivacy iand iensuring isecurity. iThe ivery iessence
iof ithe irule iof ilaw iis ithat ithere ishould ibe ia ibalance ibetween iprotecting ithe ipublic iby ithe
igovernment iand iprotecting iit ifrom ithe igovernment. iWithout iprivacy iprotection, ithe
igovernment iis ia ipotential ithreat ito ithe irights iof iits icitizens.

4.2.2 iSkilling iVersus ide-Skilling

The iincreasing ideployment iof ipolice irobots imeans ithat ipolice iofficers imust iacquire inew iskills.
iThe ioperation iof iteleoperated ipolice irobots iand ithe iperformance iof ipolice iactions iusing
irobotic itechnology iboth ineed idifferent ioperational iand istrategic irequirements ifrom ithe ipolice
ipersonnel. iThe idownside iis ithat ia iloss iof iessential ipolice iskills imay ioccur—skills iacquired
ithrough iextensive itraining iand iexperience—as ia iresult iof igetting iused ito ithe ideployment iof
ipolice irobots, iafter iwhich ipolice iofficers iwould ibe iless iable ito iintervene iin iserious iproblems
ithat icannot ibe isolved iusing irobots.

4.2.3 iArmed iPolice iRobots

Armed ipolice irobots iraise iimportant iethical iquestions. iIn ithe ishort iand imedium-term, iit iis inot
iexpected ithat ithere iwill ibe iarmed iautonomous ipolice irobots, ibut ithere iare iongoing
iexperiments iwith iarmed iteleoperated ipolice irobots. iIn ithe iUSA, ifor iexample, ithere iare
iconcrete iplans ifor iteleoperated ipolice irobots iequipped. iThey ican, iamong iother/tasks, ibe iused
ifor icrowd icontrol. iAt ithe imoment, iwhen ithis ipolice irobot iwith ia itaser iattacks ia i’suspect’, iit
icreates ia inew, idangerous isituation ithat iis idifferent ifrom ithe isituation iin iwhich ian iagent iarrests
ia isuspect.

Future iScope

There iis ino idenying ithat i iRobotic itechnologies iare iall iset ito ichange ithe iway ithings iare idone
iin ithe iindustries iin iwhich ithey iare ibeing iimplemented. iEntrepreneurs iare ivoicing ia i isimilar
isentiment iand iare ioptimistic iabout ithe iuse iof iRobotics iin ivarious iindustrial isegments. i
iRobotics iis imainly icapturing iindustries ilike imanufacturing, i ipharmaceutical, iFMCG,
ipackaging, iand iinspection. iA ibit iof i iRobotics iwould ialso ibe iseen iin ithe ihealthcare isector
iprimarily iin ithe iform iof iassistive iand iskill idevelopment itechnologies. iThe iother ipromising
isectors iare idefense iand ieducation. i iThe iworld ihad icome iacross ithe iPC i irevolution iand imobile
irevolution iin ithe irecent ipast inow iit iis ithe itime ifor iinevitable irobotics. i iConsidering ithat ithe
iglobal iplayers, i ilike i iGoogle, iFESTO i iand i iTesla iare iinvesting iin iRobotics ialong iwith ia
isubstantial iincrease iin iamateur irobotic ienthusiasts, i iOpen isource itools iand iplatforms iavailable
ifor irobotics, iIt iis iassured ithat isignificant idevelopment iin ithis ifield iwill ioccur iin ianother i i5-10
i iyears.

Conclusion
Replacing iemployees iwith irobots iis ian iinevitable ichoice ifor iorganizations iin ithe iservice isector,
imore iso iin ithe ihealth icare isector ibecause iof ithe ichallenging iand isometimes iunhealthy iworking
ienvironments, ibut, iat ithe isame itime, ithe iresearchers ipropose ithat iit ishould ibe idone iin ia
imanner ithat ihelps iin iimproving ithe iemployment iand imotivation iof iemployees iin ithis isector. i
Our iconclusion iis ibased ion isome ikey icharacteristics iof inew irobotics ithat ievoke ivarious isocial
iand iethical iissues: i(1) ishort-, imedium- iand ilong-term itrends iin ithe ifield iof irobot itechnology,
i(2) isocial igains iof irobotization, i(3) irobots ias iinformation itechnology, i(4) ithe ilifelike
iappearance iof irobots, i(5) ithe idegree iof iautonomy iof irobots, i(6) irobotic isystems ias
idehumanizing isystems, iand i(7) igovernance iissues irelating ito inew irobotics.
The iintroduction iof inew irobotics iis ipaired iwith ian ienormous ihuman ichallenge. iMaking iuse iof
iopportunities iand idealing iwith itheir isocial, ilegal, iand iethical iaspects icall ifor ihuman iwisdom.
iTrust iin iour itechnological icapabilities iis ian iimportant ipart iof ithis. iBut ilet ius ihope ithat itrust iin
itechnology iwill inot iget ithe iupper ihand. iTrust iin ihumans iand ithe iacceptance iof ihuman
iabilities, ibut ialso ihuman ifailures, iought ito ibe ithe idriving iforce ibehind iour iactions. iLike ino
iother itechnology, inew irobotics iis iinspired iby ithe iphysical iand icognitive iabilities iof ihumans.
iThis itechnology iaims ito icopy iand isubsequently iimprove ihuman icharacteristics iand icapacities.
iIt iappears ito ibe ia irace ibetween imachines iand ius. i
References:

1. Aldrich iFK i(2003) iSmart ihomes: ipast, ipresent, iand ifuture. iIn: iHarper iR i(ed) iInside ithe
ismart ihome. iSpringer, iLondon, ipp i17–39.

2. Asaro iPM i(2008) iHow ijust icould ia irobot iwar ibe? iIn: iBriggle iA, iWaelbers iK, iBrey iPh
i(eds) iCurrent iissues iin icomputing iand iphilosophy. iIOS iPress, iAmsterdam, ipp i50–64.

3. Butter iM, iRensma iA, iVan iBoxsel iJ iet ial i(2008) iRobotics ifor ihealthcare i(final ireport).DG
iInformation iSociety, iEuropean iCommission, iBrussels.

4. Evans iD i(2010) iWanting ithe iimpossible. iThe iDilemma iat ithe iheart iof iintimate ihuman-
robot irelationships. iIn: iWilks iY i(ed) iClose iengagements iwith iartificial icompanions. iKey
isocial, ipsychological, iethical, iand idesign iissues. iJohn iBenjamins iPublishing iCompany,
iAmsterdam, ipp i75–88.

5. Gates iB i(2007) iA irobot iin ievery ihome. iThe ileader iof ithe iPC irevolution ipredicts ithat ithe
inext ihot ifield iwill ibe irobotics. iSci iAm i296:58–65.

6. Gusikhin iO, iFilev iD, iRychtyckyj iN i(2008) iIntelligent ivehicle isystems: iapplications iand
inew itrends. iInformatics iin iControl iAutomation iand iRobotics. iLect iNotes iElectr iEng i15:3–
14.
7. Sharkey iN i(2008) iGrounds ifor idiscrimination: iautonomous irobot iweapons. iRUSI iDef iSyst
i11(2):86–89.

8. Van iOost iE, iReed iD i(2011) iTowards ia isociological iunderstanding iof irobots ias
icompanions. iIn: iLamers iMH, iVerbeek iFJ i(eds) iHuman-robot ipersonal irelationships
i(LNICTS i59). iSpringer, iHeidelberg, ipp i11–18.

9. Sullins iJP i(2010) iRoboWarfare: ican irobots ibe imore iethical ithan ihumans ion ithe ibattlefield?
iEthics iInf iTechnol i12(3):263–275.

10. iM. iAlemi, iA. iMeghdari, iM. iGhazisaedy, iThe iimpact iof isocial irobotics ion il2 ilearners’
ianxiety iand iattitude iin iEnglish ivocabulary iacquisition. iInt. iJ. iSoc. iRobot. i7, i523–535
i(2015).

11.B. iMutlu, iJ. iForlizzi, iJ. iHodgins, iA istorytelling irobot: iModeling iand ievaluation iof ihuman-
like igaze ibehavior, iin iHumanoid iRobots, i2006 i6th iIEEE-RAS iInternational iConference
i(IEEE, i2006), ipp. i518–523.

12.C.-M. iHuang, iB. iMutlu, iLearning-based imodeling iof imultimodal ibehaviors ifor ihumanlike
irobots, iin iProceedings iof ithe i2014 iACM/IEEE iInternational iConference ion iHuman-Robot
iInteraction i(ACM, i2014), ipp. i57–64.

13.J. iJanssen, iC. ivan ider iWal, iM. iNeerincx, iR. iLooije, iMotivating ichildren ito ilearn iarithmetic
iwith ian iadaptive irobot igame, iin iProceedings iof ithe iThird iinternational iconference ion
iSocial iRobotics i(ACM, i2011), ipp. i153–162.

14.T. iSchodde, iK. iBergmann, iS. iKopp, iAdaptive irobot ilanguage itutoring ibased ion iBayesian
iknowledge itracing iand ipredictive idecision-making, iin iProceedings iof ithe i2017 iACM/IEEE
iInternational iConference ion iHuman-Robot iInteraction i(ACM, i2017), ipp. i128–136.