Do Robots Need a Face?

Let’s look at Wall-E:

Does anyone think he’s not cute?  After watching the movie and seeing his personality unfold for an hour and a half?  We can even attach adjectives to him:  Wall-E seems shy, down to earth, scared.  He would be the quiet boy sitting by himself at the lunch table who gets easily hurt; the one who always gets bullied.  Wall-E is a robot that you would want to take care of, want to protect, want to love.

In class someone brought up the question of why humanoid robots were ever even created.  With robots that look like humans, we begin to question what characterizes a human identity.  We were able to identify with the androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and wonder if the job of the bounty hunters was just.  We felt compassion and sympathy toward Andrew in Bicentennial Man.  In A.I., the crowd was unable to watch David get killed at the Flesh Fair.  As we can see in these stories, the line between robots and human gets quite blurred.

So why ever create this problem?  Someone mentioned that we need robots designed for specific functions such as caregiving to resemble humans in order for attachment and emotional response to occur.  I suppose I can see this, but I really don’t think it’s necessary.  Once again, it’s an example of choosing the familiar over the unfamiliar, but I think humans could get attached to robots like Wall-E quickly.  Would you let Wall-E take care of your baby?  Or your younger brother?

If robots didn’t ever resemble humans, there would probably never be a robots rights movement.  Or if there were a rights movement, it would resemble an animal rights movement rather than a human rights movement.  If robots looked like Wall-E, it would be clear what is a robot and who is human.  There would be no confusion, it would be easy to differentiate.  Robots would remain human’s mechanical creation.  Their purpose would be service.  Like a pet, this service could in some situations be entertainment or offering affection.  But even so, no one would argue that they were human.

Thin Line Between Android and Human

In relation to my previous post about Data, the android on Star Trek: The Next Generation, I would like to point out what seems to be the signifier for distinguishing between humans and androids: empathy.  A great deal of weight is placed on the display of empathy.  This can be seen especially in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? in which the destruction of androids relies completely on the Voightt-Kampf Empathy Test.  Lack of empathy especially toward animals and unborn children signifies the androids lack of knowledge about worldly things and understanding of the importance of animals, in an environment where most are endangered or extinct on Earth.  But what happens when humans lack empathy?  Does the bounty hunter come and kill them off in hopes of protecting the Earth?  I find it complicated to understand how empathy can be measured as a human response when the humans in the novel have emotion devices that dictate how they feel. If anyone can rationalize this I would greatly appreciate it.

Data: More than Robot, Less than Human

I have a serious obsession with Star Trek, particularly, The Original Series and The Next Generation.  My favorite character from the Star Trek: The Next Generation is Data.  His intelligence is impeccable and his curiosity is amusing.  He knows everything but knows nothing about humanity and why things work in the human world the way they do.  The most interesting part of his curiosity is the fact that his questions are philosophical questions that people have been asking for years and when his shipmates lack answers he comes up with the most rational reasons for not knowing the answers.  Here are some videos highlighting moments of his curiosity, desire to feel human and misunderstanding of human ways.

Data gets a lesson in the meaning of motherhood and when to stop talking.

Data learns the difference between losing someone close to you and losing someone you don’t know well.

Data questions why he was creating and rationalizes the purpose of reproduction.

Data is given the gift of laughter.

Genuine laughter… or maybe a glitch.