Zigzaggery

art : ai : communication : research : robotics : science : sf : teaching : theory : writing

Category: Research (page 1 of 15)

Presentation at 2014 IEEE Response Robotics Summer School

This year the Department of Computing at Curtin, in association with the Perth Artifactory, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology and other international partners, is hosting the 2014 IEEE Robotics and Automation Society Response Robotics Summer School and Workshop.

I am presenting tomorrow (Monday 29 September), in a joint session, “Art and Robotics”, with the performance artist Stelarc founder of the Alternate Anatomies Laboratory at Curtin. I hope that our session will invigorate the attendees, who will already have experienced two hours of talks and discussions, and will probably be desperate for lunch!

Stelarc will be presenting first, and will likely provide a provocative view of the possibilities of robotics as explored in his artistic practice, and I’m going to try to work from those ideas back towards response robotics by looking at the various ways that robots can be understood to communicate. I’ll be talking about social robotics from scientific and artistic perspectives, moving from examples such as ASIMO (Honda):

ASIMO 4.28.11

and Kismet (MIT):

Kismet, 1993-2000, view 2 - MIT Museum - DSC03711

via The Fish-Bird Project (CSR):

fish-bird

and AUR (MIT):

AUR Still from Video

to discuss relations with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) robots like this Packbot (iRobot) pictured with a soldier:

US Navy 090310-N-7090S-001 Explosive ordnance disposal technicians are using remote-controlled machines to help detect and defuse improvised explosive devices

So, that’s a completely normal presentation trajectory for me, and I’m hoping that it’ll make sense to everyone else!

Criticism, not as judging, but as bringing to life

I can’t help but dream about a kind of criticism that would try not to judge but bring a work, a book, a sentence, an idea to life; it would light fires, watch the grass grow, listen to the wind, and catch the sea foam in the breeze and scatter it. It would multiply not judgments but signs of existence; it would summon them, drag them from their sleep. Perhaps it would invent them sometimes ‐ all the better. Criticism that hands down sentences sends me to sleep; I’d like a criticism of scintillating leaps of the imagination. It would not be sovereign or dressed in red. It would bear the lightning of possible storms.

Michel Foucault, in “The Masked Philosopher”, on criticism that brings ideas to life. I think that this is what research in the humanities is all about, and it encapsulates how I would like to think and write.

Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots

As promised here is my video presentation for Robo-philosophy 2014. This is based on a full length paper that I have written for a special issue of the International Journal of Social Robotics. The special issue should be published sometime in, or possibly before, early 2015.

Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots presented by Eleanor Sandry (Robo-Philosophy 2014) from Eleanor Sandry on Vimeo.

In this paper, I re-evaluate what constitutes a social robot by employing a range of communication theories, alongside ideas of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism, to analyse how different forms of robot are interpreted as socially aware and communicative. A critical assessment of the development of humanlike and animal-like robotic companions is juxtaposed with a consideration of human relations with machine-like robots in working partnerships.

Although some traditions of communication theory offer perspectives that support the development of humanlike and animal-like social robots, these perspectives have been criticised by communication scholars as unethically closed to the possibilities of otherness and difference. However, an analysis of human relations with Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) robots and with AUR, the robotic desk lamp, demonstrates that machine-like robots are interpreted by humans as social and communicative others. This interpretation is supported by processes of tempered anthropomorphism and/or zoomorphism, which allow people to communicate with machine-like robots while also ensuring that a sense of the otherness of the machine and respect for its non-human abilities is retained.

Presenting at a distance

This time last week I was preparing to present a paper for the Robo-philosophy Conference 2014 at Aarhus University in Denmark.

robo_webbanner_1013x230

What was unusual about the situation was that I had spent five hours teaching face-to-face in Western Australia already that day, and my presentation was online in Vimeo, ready and waiting to be played.

I suppose it isn’t that strange any more, to present things virtually, that is. I was still in Western Australia when later that evening I did some technical tests for Skyping into the conference room, so that I’d be able to answer questions. Later still, I was online talking to people on the other side of the world about my research, having already received (and, in fact, having started my reply) to an email from a researcher sitting in that distant room. Actually it was a bit odder than that, because since the laptop for the Skype was fully wired up to speakers etc it couldn’t be turned around easily. This meant that I saw the audience briefly when I was introduced and the machine was held up so the camera looked over the room, but after that time I was talking to a blank blackboard, very aware that my huge head (on the screen, no this isn’t a comment about my massive ego) was answering the questions that people raised in the room.

I stuck around on Skype for the rest of the panel. Although it was very difficult to hear everything that the other presenters said, and I lost video part way through, it still felt good to be listening in, to be in some way at least a part of that section of the conference. This was important for me, and made the whole thing more valuable as an experience.

Theoretically, it would have been quite possible for me to present the paper via Skype, live, as it were, but I was very glad that I decided not to do this. There were two main reasons. The first related to the possibility for technical issues to arise. Presentations always run the risk of these, but Skyping from home into a conference room with a wireless internet connection felt too risky. The second was really to do with comfort. By recording the presentation I took the pressure off on the night, and I wasn’t in the position of having to present my paper live to an audience I couldn’t see very well (or possibly at all).

I’ll post the video of the presentation here later tonight.

Older posts

© 2014 Zigzaggery

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑