MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Guy Hoffman 談有「靈魂」的機器人

Guy Hoffman: Robots with "soul"

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Guy Hoffman

2013年10月演講,2014年1月在TEDxJaffa 2013上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恆

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

身兼動畫師和爵士音樂家的機器人專家會創造出什麼樣的機器人?有趣的、活潑的、好奇的機器人。Guy Hoffman展示了他的「特殊機器人家族」影片-包括兩位喜歡與人類合奏的機器人音樂家。(攝於TEDxJaffa)

 

關於Guy Hoffman

機器人可藉由人類彼此互動的方式與人類互動嗎?Guy Hoffman研究機器人的具身認知及智慧。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

身為IDC媒體創意實驗室(IDC Media Invention Lab)共同研究主任,Guy Hoffman研究有「靈魂」的機器人。他探索機器人的人性-當它們與人類互動時,如何思考、感覺、反應及動作。他和他的團隊創作了世上第一齣人類與機器人合演的戲劇,以及世上第一場人機爵士樂二重奏、即興演奏等等。

 

Hoffman的作品被《時代雜誌》提名為年度最佳發明之一,2010及2012年,他被列為以色列40歲以下最有前途的研究員之一。

 

Guy Hoffman的英語網上資料

Bio: IDC Media Invention Lab

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Guy Hoffman 談有「靈魂」的機器人

 

我的工作是設計、建造及研究能與人交流的機器人,但這個故事並非從機器人開始,而是從動畫開始。當我第一次觀賞皮克斯的《頑皮跳跳燈》時,感到震驚不已:如此微不足道的檯燈竟能展現如此豐富的情感。我是指,看看它們-電影結束時,你確實對兩件傢俱產生某種感情。(笑聲)我心想,我一定得學會怎麼做這個,因此我做了一個相當糟的職業抉擇。我這麼做時,我媽的反應就像那樣。(笑聲)我辭去以色列軟體公司一份相當優渥的技術工作,搬到紐約學習動畫。我和室友住在哈林區一棟搖搖欲墜的公寓裡。這並非某種比喻,某天客廳天花板真的塌了。每當製作紐約違章建築相關報導時,他們都會跑到我們公寓前採訪,彷彿把它當作顯示情況多糟的背景。

 

總之,無論上課的日子或夜晚,我總是一幅又一幅地畫著鉛筆動畫。我學到兩件令人驚訝的事。其中之一是,當你想喚起某種情感時,外觀並非首要之務,關鍵在於動作-物體運動的時間掌控。第二項來自一位老師的教誨,事實上他是《冰原歷險紀》中黃鼠狼的創作者。他說:「身為動畫師的你並非導演,而是演員。」因此如果你想為角色尋找適當的肢體語言,別僅是空想,用你的身體尋找-站在鏡子前、在攝影機前試演,無論你需要什麼,然後將動作放回角色身上。

 

一年後,我加入麻省理工學院機器人生命團隊,這是最早研究人類和機器人關係的團隊之一。我仍抱持這個夢想-創造真實存在的頑皮跳跳燈。但我發現機器人的動作方式不像我在動畫課程中所學的那麼生動。相反地,它們都-該怎麼說?它們都有點機械化。(笑聲)因此我想,如果將動畫學校所學應用於設計機器人檯燈會如何?因此我畫了一幅又一幅設計圖,試著使機器人儘可能優雅、生動。你可看見桌上的機器人與我互動的情形。事實上我正在重新設計這個機器人,但它一無所知,對它來說,幫助我有點像自掘墳墓。但是-我希望它比較不像提供照明的機械構造,而像能提供幫助的安靜助手。隨時滿足你的需要,但不造成干擾。例如當我正在尋找電池時,它可巧妙地讓我知道電池在哪裡。因此你可看見我有點困惑,我不是演員。我希望你們注意到,同一個機械構造,在某個時刻,它的動作似乎非常溫柔、充滿關懷;在不同情境下則顯得狂暴、激烈。相同結構,只是動作的差異。演員:「你想知道嗎?真想知道嗎?他死透了!他就躺在那裡,目光呆滯!」(笑聲)但以優雅方式動作只是整個「人機互動」結構的基礎之一。當時我正在攻讀博士學位,我致力於研究人機團隊合作,即人類和機器人攜手合作。我研究團隊合作的工程學、心理學及哲學,同時我意識到自己和一位好友-他也在現場-也遇上團隊合作的情境。在那個情境中,我們很容易想像,不久的將來機器人將與我們共同生活。那是逾越節晚餐結束後,我們正收拾大量的折疊椅。我驚訝於大家如此迅速地找到各自的節奏,每個人都進行自己的部分,不需分工、不需言語溝通,就這麼發生了。於是我想,人類和機器人似乎並非如此。當人類和機器人互動時,比較像下棋:人類走一步,機器人分析人類的動作,然後決定下一步該怎麼做。先計畫,然後執行,此時人類靜心等待,直到再次輪到他們,因此這就像下棋。這十分合理,因為對數學家和電腦科學家來說,下棋很棒,它關乎資訊、分析、制定決策和計畫。

 

但我希望我的機器人不那麼像棋手,而像行動家,可與人類有默契地合作,因此我做了第二個糟糕的職業抉擇:我決定研讀一學期表演課程。我暫停博士課程,參加表演課。事實上我參與了一齣戲劇,希望現在已找不到那部影片了。我收集所有能找到的表演相關書籍,包括一本從圖書館借來的19世紀著作。我十分驚訝,因為我的名字是借閱名單上的第二個,上一個名字的借閱日期是1889年。(笑聲)這本書等了100年,才因機器人而重見天日。這本書教演員如何運作身體的每塊肌肉,以展現他們想表達的每種情感。

 

但真正令我有所啟發的是方法演技部分,它在20世紀非常流行。方法演技指出,你不需要控制身上每塊肌肉;相反地,你應該利用身體找到對的動作,你應該運用感覺記憶重新建構情感。藉由身體思考,尋找對的表達方式,即興發揮,配合舞台搭檔演出。當時我正讀到認知心理學中的類似概念,即所謂的「具身認知」,其中也談到相同觀點-我們藉由身體思考。我們不僅藉由大腦思考、以身體展現,我們的身體亦回饋大腦,產生相應動作。這使我靈光乍現。我返回辦公室,寫了這篇論文-不曾發表過-標題是《人工智慧表演課》。我甚至花了一個月時間,參與當時第一部由人類與機器人合演的戲劇,就是你之前見過的影片。於是我思考:該如何製作某種人工智慧模型-電腦、計算模型-模擬一些即興反應:冒險、甚至犯錯等概念。也許它可成為更棒的機器人隊友。因此我花了很長時間研究這些模型,將它應用在幾個機器人身上。你可看見這是一個相當早期的例子。這個機器人試著運用具身人工智慧,儘可能模仿我的動作,彷彿一個遊戲,我們來看一下。你可看見它被我愚弄了,這有點像-你或許見過演員們試著模仿彼此的情形,以培養他們之間的默契。然後我做了另一個實驗。我在街上找人使用這個機器人檯燈,試驗這個具身人工智慧的概念。因此-事實上我在同一個機器人身上使用兩種大腦。這就是你見過的檯燈機器人,我替它植入兩個大腦。針對其中半數的人,我放入傳統型、精於計算的機器人大腦。它會等待、分析、計畫,我們不妨稱它為「計算型大腦」。另一半人面對的是類似舞臺演員、勇於冒險的大腦,我們姑且稱它為「冒險型大腦」。有時它會在不明就裡的情況下行動,有時它會犯錯後進行修正。我讓他們進行一項相當乏味的任務,需花費約20分鐘。他們必須攜手合作,有點類似工廠工作,重複進行相同動作。我發現人們相當喜愛「冒險型大腦」,他們認為它較為聰明、較可信賴、是較佳的團隊成員、對團隊成就貢獻較多。他們甚至稱它為「他」或「她」。與「計算型大腦」合作的人則稱它為「它」,不曾有人稱它為「他」或「她」。任務完成後,與「冒險型大腦」合作的人談到它時,他們說:「最後我們成了好朋友,並在腦海裡擊掌。」不管那是什麼意思。(笑聲)聽起來有點痛。然而,與「計算型大腦」合作的人則說:「它就像個懶徒弟,只做自認該做的,不肯多勞。」幾乎符合人們對機器人的預期。因此我驚訝地發現,相較於機器人技術研究者,一般人對機器人有更高的期望。以某方面來說,我想,或許時機已成熟-如同方法演技改變了人們對19世紀表演方式的認知,由經過精確計算的計畫性表現方式轉向更直覺、冒險、具身的表現方式。也許類似的機器人革命時代已到來。

 

幾年後,我在亞特蘭大喬治亞理工學院從事下一份研究工作。我加入一個研究機器人音樂家的團隊。我想,音樂是很棒的工具,可觀察團隊合作、配合度、時間掌控、即興演出等項目。我們研發出這個演奏馬林巴琴的機器人。為所有和我一樣對馬林巴琴不熟悉的朋友解釋一下,它是一種大型木琴。當我看見這個,也觀察了其它人機即興互動情形-是的,也有其它人機即興互動項目。同樣有點像下棋,人類走一步,機器人分析人類的動作,做出即興反應。因此這就是音樂家所謂的「呼應互動」,這也適用於機器人及人工智慧。但我思考,如果我可將戲劇表演及團隊合作研究中使用的概念加以運用,也許我可讓機器人組成一個樂隊,每個人都即興地與彼此互動,沒有間斷。因此我進行相同嘗試,這次用的是音樂。機器人對演出內容一無所知,它只是移動身體、找機會演奏,做著我17歲時爵士樂老師教我的事。她說,當你即興演出時,有時並不知道自己在做什麼,但依然持續下去。因此我試著製造一個不確定自己在做什麼、但依然持續的機器人。因此我們觀賞一下這場表演的片段。機器人聆聽人類音樂家演奏,然後即興發揮。接著看看人類音樂家如何回應機器人的演出-根據它的動作,有時甚至對機器人的反應感到驚訝。(音樂)(掌聲)

 

身為音樂家,不僅是演奏樂曲,否則就沒人觀賞現場演奏了。音樂家也藉由肢體交流,和其他樂隊成員、觀眾。他們用肢體來表達音樂。於是我想,我們已擁有舞臺表演型機器人音樂家,何不將它打造成真正的音樂家?我開始為機器人設計一個可表達情感的頭部。這個頭不會接觸馬林巴琴,只是用來表達對音樂的感覺。這些畫著草圖的紙巾來自亞特蘭大某個酒吧,正好位於實驗室和我家之間。(笑聲)因此我平均每天待在那裡約3、4個小時,大概吧。(笑聲)我重新拾起動畫工具,試著想像,不僅是機器人音樂家的模樣,特別是機器人音樂家的動作,顯示它不喜歡他人的演奏-也許顯示它當下對節奏的感覺。

 

因此我們最後獲得製造這種機器人的資金,棒極了。現在我讓各位觀賞類似的表演,這次使用一個能表達情感的頭部。注意一件事:請觀察這個機器人如何展現它對人類演奏的感覺,同時讓人類知道機器人知道自己在做什麼,以及它開始獨奏時,動作發生什麼改變。(音樂)現在它看著我,確保我正在聆聽。(音樂)我們再看一下這首歌最後一個和弦。此時機器人用身體進行溝通,顯示它忙著做自己的事,以及它準備好配合我演奏最後一個和弦。(音樂)(掌聲)

 

因此我希望你們看見-謝謝,我希望你們看見-未與樂器接觸的身體部分確實有助於音樂表演。既然我們在亞特蘭大,因此不免有些說唱歌手拜訪我們的實驗室。這位說唱歌手前來後,我們讓他和機器人一起演出。你可看見機器人對節奏產生回應,請注意兩點。第一,當機器人搖頭晃腦時,很難抗拒加入其中的衝動,你或許想和它一起搖頭晃腦。第二,雖然這位說唱歌手相當專注於他的iPhone,當機器人轉向他時,他隨即轉頭,即使它只出現在他的視線邊緣-他的眼角餘光中-仍非常有影響力。這就是我們無法忽視周遭物體移動的原因,這是我們的天性。因此如果你有些困擾,也許跟你的夥伴-他總是盯著iPhone或智慧手機-也許你希望擁有一個機器人,以獲得他們的注意力。(笑聲)(音樂)(掌聲)

 

最後再介紹一下我們最近研發的機器人。令人驚訝地,我們發現以某種程度來說,人們不再對那些聰明的機器人感興趣。它們會即興演出、聆聽、展現所有我花了多年時間研究的具身智慧行為。他們相當喜愛那個會享受音樂的機器人。(笑聲)他們不說這個機器人隨著音樂扭動身體,而說它在享受音樂。因此我們思考,何不借用這個想法,因此我設計了一項新設備。這次不是檯燈,而是揚聲器底座,就是可插上智慧手機的設備。因此我想,如果揚聲器底座不僅可為你放音樂,也可享受音樂會如何?因此同樣地,這是早期階段的動畫測試。(笑聲)這是最後的成品。(饒舌歌曲)好,不停地點頭。(掌聲)聽眾席上也有很多人點頭,因此我們看得出機器人可影響人類。這不僅是關於娛樂和遊戲。

 

我認為自己非常熱衷於藉由身體溝通、移動的機器人,原因之一是-我打算與各位分享一個機器人專家之間的小秘密-每個人在生命某個階段都將與機器人共處。你未來生命中某個階段將出現機器人;若不是你的未來,則是你孩子的未來。我希望這些機器人比現在更流暢、更迷人、更優雅。因此我認為,也許機器人不該像棋手,應該更像舞臺演員或音樂家。也許它們應該能冒險和即興演出,也許它們應該能預測你下一步行動,也許它們應該能犯錯、並進行修正。因為到頭來,我們不過是人類。也許對人類來說,不那麼完美的機器人才是完美的,謝謝。(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk

What kind of robots does an animator / jazz musician / roboticist make? Playful, reactive, curious ones. Guy Hoffman shows demo film of his family of unusual robots -- including two musical bots that like to jam with humans. (Filmed at TEDxJaffa.)
 
About Guy Hoffman
Can robots and humans interact the way that human beings interact with each other? Guy Hoffman researches embodied cognition and intelligence in robots.
 
About the transcript
My job is to design, build and study robots that communicate with people. But this story doesn't start with robotics at all, it starts with animation. When I first saw Pixar's "Luxo Jr.," I was amazed by how much emotion they could put into something as trivial as a desk lamp. I mean, look at them -- at the end of this movie, you actually feel something for two pieces of furniture. (Laughter) And I said, I have to learn how to do this. So I made a really bad career decision. And that's what my mom was like when I did it. (Laughter) I left a very cozy tech job in Israel at a nice software company and I moved to New York to study animation. And there I lived in a collapsing apartment building in Harlem with roommates. I'm not using this phrase metaphorically, the ceiling actually collapsed one day in our living room. Whenever they did those news stories about building violations in New York, they would put the report in front of our building. As kind of like a backdrop to show how bad things are.
 
Anyway, during the day I went to school and at night I would sit and draw frame by frame of pencil animation. And I learned two surprising lessons -- one of them was that when you want to arouse emotions, it doesn't matter so much how something looks, it's all in the motion -- it's in the timing of how the thing moves. And the second, was something one of our teachers told us. He actually did the weasel in Ice Age. And he said: "As an animator you are not a director, you're an actor." So, if you want to find the right motion for a character, don't think about it, go use your body to find it -- stand in front of a mirror, act it out in front of a camera -- whatever you need. And then put it back in your character.
 
A year later I found myself at MIT in the robotic life group, it was one of the first groups researching the relationships between humans and robots. And I still had this dream to make an actual, physical Luxo Jr. lamp. But I found that robots didn't move at all in this engaging way that I was used to for my animation studies. Instead, they were all -- how should I put it, they were all kind of robotic. (Laughter) And I thought, what if I took whatever I learned in animation school, and used that to design my robotic desk lamp. So I went and designed frame by frame to try to make this robot as graceful and engaging as possible. And here when you see the robot interacting with me on a desktop. And I'm actually redesigning the robot so, unbeknownst to itself, it's kind of digging its own grave by helping me. (Laughter) I wanted it to be less of a mechanical structure giving me light, and more of a helpful, kind of quiet apprentice that's always there when you need it and doesn't really interfere. And when, for example, I'm looking for a battery that I can't find, in a subtle way, it will show me where the battery is. So you can see my confusion here. I'm not an actor. And I want you to notice how the same mechanical structure can at one point, just by the way it moves seem gentle and caring -- and in the other case, seem violent and confrontational. And it's the same structure, just the motion is different. Actor: "You want to know something? Well, you want to know something? He was already dead! Just laying there, eyes glazed over!" (Laughter) But, moving in graceful ways is just one building block of this whole structure called human-robot interaction. I was at the time doing my Ph.D., I was working on human robot teamwork; teams of humans and robots working together. I was studying the engineering, the psychology, the philosophy of teamwork. And at the same time I found myself in my own kind of teamwork situation with a good friend of mine who is actually here. And in that situation we can easily imagine robots in the near future being there with us. It was after a Passover seder. We were folding up a lot of folding chairs, and I was amazed at how quickly we found our own rhythm. Everybody did their own part. We didn't have to divide our tasks. We didn't have to communicate verbally about this. It all just happened. And I thought, humans and robots don't look at all like this. When humans and robots interact, it's much more like a chess game. The human does a thing, the robot analyzes whatever the human did, then the robot decides what to do next, plans it and does it. And then the human waits, until it's their turn again. So, it's much more like a chess game and that makes sense because chess is great for mathematicians and computer scientists. It's all about information analysis, decision making and planning.
 
But I wanted my robot to be less of a chess player, and more like a doer that just clicks and works together. So I made my second horrible career choice: I decided to study acting for a semester. I took off from a Ph.D. I went to acting classes. I actually participated in a play, I hope theres no video of that around still. And I got every book I could find about acting, including one from the 19th century that I got from the library. And I was really amazed because my name was the second name on the list -- the previous name was in 1889. (Laughter) And this book was kind of waiting for 100 years to be rediscovered for robotics. And this book shows actors how to move every muscle in the body to match every kind of emotion that they want to express.
 
But the real relevation was when I learned about method acting. It became very popular in the 20th century. And method acting said, you don't have to plan every muscle in your body. Instead you have to use your body to find the right movement. You have to use your sense memory to reconstruct the emotions and kind of think with your body to find the right expression. Improvise, play off yor scene partner. And this came at the same time as I was reading about this trend in cognitive psychology called embodied cognition. Which also talks about the same ideas -- We use our bodies to think, we don't just think with our brains and use our bodies to move. but our bodies feed back into our brain to generate the way that we behave. And it was like a lightning bolt. I went back to my office. I wrote this paper -- which I never really published called "Acting Lessons for Artificial Intelligence." And I even took another month to do what was then the first theater play with a human and a robot acting together. That's what you saw before with the actors. And I thought: How can we make an artificial intelligence model -- computer, computational model -- that will model some of these ideas of improvisation, of taking risks, of taking chances, even of making mistakes. Maybe it can make for better robotic teammates. So I worked for quite a long time on these models and I implemented them on a number of robots. Here you can see a very early example with the robots trying to use this embodied artificial intelligence, to try to match my movements as closely as possible, sort of like a game. Let's look at it. You can see when I psych it out, it gets fooled. And it's a little bit like what you might see actors do when they try to mirror each other to find the right synchrony between them. And then, I did another experiment, and I got people off the street to use the robotic desk lamp, and try out this idea of embodied artificial intelligence. So, I actually used two kinds of brains for the same robot. The robot is the same lamp that you saw, and I put in it two brains. For one half of the people, I put in a brain that's kind of the traditional, calculated robotic brain. It waits for its turn, it analyzes everything, it plans. Let's call it the calculated brain. The other got more the stage actor, risk taker brain. Let's call it the adventurous brain. It sometimes acts without knowing everything it has to know. It sometimes makes mistakes and corrects them. And I had them do this very tedious task that took almost 20 minutes and they had to work together. Somehow simulating like a factory job of repetitively doing the same thing. And what I found was that people actually loved the adventurous robot. And they thought it was more intelligent, more committed, a better member of the team, contributed to the success of the team more. They even called it 'he' and 'she,' whereas people with the calculated brain called it 'it.' And nobody ever called it 'he' or 'she'. When they talked about it after the task with the adventurous brain, they said, "By the end, we were good friends and high-fived mentally." Whatever that means. (Laughter) Sounds painful. Whereas the people with the calculated brain said it was just like a lazy apprentice. It only did what it was supposed to do and nothing more. Which is almost what people expect robots to do, so I was surprised that people had higher expectations of robots, than what anybody in robotics thought robots should be doing. And in a way, I thought, maybe it's time -- just like method acting changed the way people thought about acting in the 19th century, from going from the very calculated, planned way of behaving, to a more intuitive, risk-taking, embodied way of behaving. Maybe it's time for robots to have the same kind of revolution.
 
A few years later, I was at my next research job at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, and I was working in a group dealing with robotic musicians. And I thought, music, that's the perfect place to look at teamwork, coordination, timing, improvisation -- and we just got this robot playing marimba. Marimba, for everybody who was like me, it was this huge, wooden xylophone. And, when I was looking at this, I looked at other works in human-robot improvisation -- yes, there are other works in human-robot improvisation -- and they were also a little bit like a chess game. The human would play, the robot would analyze what was played, would improvise their own part. So, this is what musicians called a call and response interaction, and it also fits very well, robots and artificial intelligence. But I thought, if I use the same ideas I used in the theater play and in the teamwork studies, maybe I can make the robots jam together like a band. Everybody's riffing off each other, nobody is stopping it for a moment. And so, I tried to do the same things, this time with music, where the robot doesn't really know what it's about to play. It just sort of moves its body and uses opportunities to play, And does what my jazz teacher when I was 17 taught me. She said, when you improvise, sometimes you don't know what you're doing and you're still doing it. And so I tried to make a robot that doesn't actually know what it's doing, but it's still doing it. So let's look at a few seconds from this performance. Where the robot listens to the human musician and improvises. And then, look at how the human musician also responds to what the robot is doing, and picking up from its behavior. And at some point can even be surprised by what the robot came up with. (Music) (Applause)
 
Being a musician is not just about making notes, otherwise nobody would every go see a live show. Musicians also communicate with their bodies, with other band members, with the audience, they use their bodies to express the music. And I thought, we already have a robot musician on stage, why not make it be a full-fledged musician. And I started designing a socially expressive head for the robot. The head does't actually touch the marimba, it just expresses what the music is like. These are some napkin sketches from a bar in Atlanta, that was dangerously located exactly halfway between my lab and my home. (Laughter) So I spent, I would say on average, three to four hours a day there. I think. (Laughter) And I went back to my animation tools and tried to figure out not just what a robotic musician would look like, but especially what a robotic musician would move like. To sort of show that it doesn't like what the other person is playing -- and maybe show whatever beat it's feeling at the moment.
 
So we ended up actually getting the money to build this robot, which was nice. I'm going to show you now the same kind of performance, this time with a socially expressive head. And notice one thing -- how the robot is really showing us the beat it's picking up from the human. We're also giving the human a sense that the robot knows what it's doing. And also how it changes the way it moves as soon as it starts its own solo. (Music) Now it's looking at me to make sure I'm listening. (Music) And now look at the final chord of the piece again, and this time the robot communicates with its body when it's busy doing its own thing. And when it's ready to coordinate the final chord with me. (Music) (Applause)
 
Thanks. I hope you see how much this totally not -- how much this part of the body that doesn't touch the instrument actually helps with the musical performance. And at some point, we are in Atlanta, so obviously some rapper will come into our lab at some point. And we had this rapper come in and do a little jam with the robot. And here you can see the robot basically responding to the beat and -- notice two things. One, how irresistible it is to join the robot while it's moving its head. and you kind of want to move your own head when it does it. And second, even though the rapper is really focused on his iPhone, as soon as the robot turns to him, he turns back. So even though it's just in the periphery of his vision -- it's just in the corner of his eye -- it's very powerful. And the reason is that we can't ignore physical things moving in our environment. We are wired for that. So, if you have a problem with maybe your partners looking at the iPhone too much or their smartphone too much, you might want to have a robot there to get their attention. (Laughter) (Music) (Applause)
 
Just to introduce the last robot that we've worked on, that came out of something kind of surprising that we found: At some point people didn't care anymore about the robot being so intelligent, and can improvise and listen, and do all these embodied intelligence things that I spent years on developing. They really liked that the robot was enjoying the music. (Laughter) And they didn't say that the robot was moving to the music, they said that the robot was enjoying the music. And we thought, why don't we take this idea, and I designed a new piece of furniture. This time it wasn't a desk lamp; it was a speaker dock. It was one of those things you plug your smartphone in. And I thought, what would happen if your speaker dock didn't just play the music for you, but it would actually enjoy it too. (Laughter) And so again, here are some animation tests from an early stage. (Laughter) And this is what the final product looked like. ("Drop It Like It's Hot") So, a lot of bobbing head. (Applause) A lot of bobbing heads in the audience, so we can still see robots influence people. And it's not just fun and games.
 
I think one of the reasons I care so much about robots that use their body to communicate and use their body to move -- and I'm going to let you in on a little secret we roboticists are hiding -- is that every one of you is going to be living with a robot at some point in their life. Somewhere in your future there's going to be a robot in your life. And if not in yours, then in your children's lives. And I want these robots to be -- to be more fluent, more engaging, more graceful than currently they seem to be. And for that I think that maybe robots need to be less like chess players and more like stage actors and more like musicians. Maybe they should be able to take chances and improvise. And maybe they should be able to anticipate what you're about to do. And maybe they need to be able to make mistakes and correct them, because in the end we are human. And maybe as humans, robots that are a little less than perfect are just perfect for us. Thank you. (Applause)

留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入8 + 6 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

課程討論
1

Anonymous, 2015-06-07 18:05:41
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-06-07 18:05:39
課程討論
1
Anonymous, 2015-06-07 18:05:30

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: