Once I read this sentence in the video and saw 5 seconds of it, I instantly knew it to be true:
"Our research hypotheses [are] that robots should not only move to fulfill functional purposes and constraints, but also move 'elegantly', using movements to express its internal states to humans during interaction."
It intantly clicked as an obvious design trait — it's robot body language.
I didn't expect much going into the video but damn that was good. The "Expressive" robot was just so... cute? I love the idea of robots have a little bit of personality. Also the nod to Pixar was both "of course" and "I'm so glad they did that". I 100% thought the light might try to jump at the start of the video.
People growing up with expressive robots might feel sad if(!) they understand that this behavior is artificial later in their life.
I read an interesting article on how young people will not be able to tell what a computer or program really is because so many things are „smart“ now and support speech and gestures as user input.
In watching the video (and I admit, anticipating the responses in the comments here), I started thinking about how the "expressive" robot -- whose reception is probably a bit dependent on how engaging the user found it -- now had to also incorporate ideas of authenticity and value. Some users are going to be aggressively against a cartoonish tool because it will feel "fake" to them, and emotionally deceptive. But if you're making a robot, you probably need to make a choice about its qualities and how they match what people want from your products. Apple customers may well be okay with more expressivity in this direction. Of course, the fact that the demo is riffing off Pixar, whose values and aesthetic have shared roots with Apple's own, is part of that.
I can see there also being applications in industry. Some of the “expressions” of the lamp in the video look like they signal what it’s about to do. I can see that type of expression being useful to people who are working around robots, to know what they might do next, which could be useful for safety.
I wonder under what parameters they allow functional and then expand to create expressive gesticulation. You’d need to train or program the motions one way or another, so defining this range is critical.
It seems unusual for Apple to share stuff like this (a lot of what went into Vision was kept secret). Is it for investors? I assume this means that this is far from being incorporated into any product.
I've read stories about how Apple was having trouble attracting certain researchers (academics) because they didn't allow them to publish their research.
This might be Apple's way of attracting a larger swath of academics, given that this kind of more pure research doesn't risk leaking future product roadmaps too much (which is mainly what Apple cares about with this sort of thing)
If history is any indication, we won't see any Apple consumer robots until quite some time after robots get some initial adoption and deployment by more generic companies.
Communicate intention
(Do robots have intention ? Or is it just mine ?)
Display attention
(They don't need attention.)
Show attitude
(They don't need nor don't have attitude unless artificially programmed.)
Express emotions
(...What ?)
Why are we trying to make robots seem more human ? I mean, it's straight from Apple Playbook (like the breathing light made to mimic us https://avital.ca/notes/a-closer-look-at-apples-breathing-li...) but damn, if it isn't frustrating to see all the stratagems just to make us like those machines we have no interest in liking !
TBH I think you are underestimating the practicality of it. If we are co-working or co-inhabiting with non-static entities, this becomes a much bigger concern. There is a reason industrial robots are generally in safety cages, with rapid shutdown any time the safety boundary is crossed by a human.
Option 1
- my home robot makes a sudden movement, catching me off guard, and smacking me across the shins (or worse).
Option 2
- my robot loudly announces "warning, moving to the left in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1", which drives me insane after a few days.
Option 3
- my robot taps into a million years of non-verbal communication that humans have evolved, and indicates what it is about to do both with more subtle audible and physical cues.
PS: regarding "display attention" - trivial example, "hey assistant, remind me to do X on Sunday"
- option 1: no attention display, I have no idea whether my request has been recorded
- option 2: verbal or auditory or physical cue that assistant is listening, and a cue to confirm that the request was processed successfully.
One of the robotic meal delivery companies that operates around Santa Monica has a very good at communicating with pedestrians on the sidewalk that it sees them, and is giving them right of way.
It acts a bit like a confused, startled, and apologetic, simp (sorry, I can't find a better term) and it kinda shimmies and scuttles back and forth. It's difficult to describe, but it is definitely communicating "sorry human, don't mind me, I'm just trying to find my way in this world...you go first".
I was quite enamored with this little dance the first time I saw it.
Yeah, that might have been it. The video only shows blinking eyes, but I seem to recall some other lights and movements that were used for communication.
"Our research hypotheses [are] that robots should not only move to fulfill functional purposes and constraints, but also move 'elegantly', using movements to express its internal states to humans during interaction."
It intantly clicked as an obvious design trait — it's robot body language.