Cynthia Breazeal:个人机器人的崛起

=================
http://dotsub.com/view/0074e626-5e56-4442-bd7d-14b8087d670f
Cynthia Breazeal：个人机器人的崛起
自从我是一个小女孩，第一次看到“星球大战”，我一直着迷于这种个人机器人的想法。而作为一个小女孩，我喜欢机器人的想法与我们就像一个有用的更多互动，值得信赖的搭档 - 这将喜悦我们，丰富我们的生活，帮助我们节省一星系或两个。所以我知道这样的机器人并没有真正存在，但我知道我想建立他们。
因此，20年证 - 我现在是麻省理工学院的研究生学习人工智能，今年是1997年，美国航空航天局刚刚降落在火星上的第一个机器人。但是，机器人还没有在我们的家，具有讽刺意味。我记得我想所有的原因是这样的。但人真的让我吃惊。机器人真的已经对与东西互动，而不是与人 - 当然不是在一个社会的方式，这对于我们的自然和真的会帮人接受进入我们的日常生活中的机器人。对我来说，那是空白，这就是机器人不能做呢。因此，这一年，我开始建立这种机器人，克斯梅特，世界上第一个社会的机器人。所以，三年后 - 大量的节目，与其他研究生在实验室工作的学生 - 克斯梅特准备开始与人交流。
（视频）科学家：我想给你一些东西。
克斯梅特：（废话）。
科学家：这是一只手表给我，我的女朋友。
克斯梅特：（废话）。
科学家：是啊，你看，它有它的一个蓝色小光。我几乎失去了它这个星期。
辛西娅Breazeal：那么克斯梅特与像种非口头儿童或预口头孩子的人，我以为是恰当，因为它是真正的互动尚属首次。它没有讲语言，但它并不重要。这个小机器人在某种程度上能够打入深深的东西在我们的社会。有了这样的，一个全新的互动方式，我们可以用机器人的承诺。
因此，过去几年来我一直在不断探索和我现在非常有才华的学生对自己的球队媒体实验室的这个机器人的人际层面。而我最喜欢的机器人之一是莱昂纳多。我们开发了斯坦温斯顿工作室合作与莱昂纳多。所以我想告诉你一个特殊的时刻我的狮子座。这是马特柏林互动与Leo，狮子座引进到一个新的对象。而且因为它的新，狮子座真的不知道该怎么利用它。但是像我们这样的排序，他可以有点了解它从看马特的反应。
（视频）马特柏林：你好，狮子座。狮子座，这是饼干怪兽。你能找到饼干怪兽？狮子座，饼干怪兽很不好。他很不好，狮子座。饼干怪兽是非常，非常糟糕。他是一个可怕的怪物。他希望得到您的Cookie。
（众笑）
伯恩斯坦：好了，狮子座和Cookie可能有了一个粗略的一开始有点，但他们相处得大了。
因此，我已经通过建立这些系统的教训是，机器人实际上是一个非常有趣的社会技术。凡实际上他们有能力推动我们社会的按钮，以及与我们的合作伙伴，互动就像是他们功能的核心部分。有了这样的思维上的转变，我们现在可以开始想像，我们可能没有想到，否则机器人的新问题，新的可能性。但是，这是什么意思时，我说：“把我们的社会按钮？”嗯，我们已经学到的事情之一是，如果我们设计这些机器人与我们进行交流使用相同的肢体语言，非语言的暗示，人们使用相同的类别 - 像Nexi，我们的人形机器人做在这里 - 我们所发现的是，人对机器人很像他们回应市民。人们利用这些线索来确定一个人是怎么样有说服力的东西，怎么讨人喜欢，怎么搞的，怎么值得信赖。原来，这是机器人一样。
它的转向了现在，机器人实际上是成为一个非常有趣的新的科学工具来了解人类的行为。要回答的问题，如它是如何，从一个短暂的相遇，我们能够做一个值得信赖的另一人是如何估计？拟态的认为发挥了作用，但如何？特别是它的手势模仿这个问题？原来，这真的很难学习或理解从看这个人，因为当我们互动，我们做这些线索全部自动。我们不能仔细地控制他们，因为他们为我们的潜意识。但随着机器人，你可以。
因此，在这个视频在这里 - 这是从大卫DeSteno的美国东北大学的实验室拍摄的视频。他是一个心理学家，我们一直与合作。还有的实际上是一个科学家仔细地控制Nexi的线索能够研究这个问题。而底线是 - 这个工程的原因是 - 因为它原来人就是像人甚至当与机器人互动。因此，考虑到重要的见解，我们现在可以开始想像的机器人应用的新品种。例如，如果机器人不回应我们的非语言暗示，也许他们会是一个很酷，新的通信技术。想象一下这样的：一个机器人为您的手机配件？你叫你的朋友，她把一个机器人，并巴姆她的手机，你是一个MeBot - 你可以让目光接触，你可以跟你的朋友，你可以四处走动，你可以手势 - 也许退而求其次，真正在那里，或者是什么？
为了探究这个问题我的学生，Siggy Adalgeirsson，做了一项研究，我们带进我们的实验室做一个远程的协作者人类参与者协同工作，人。喜欢看的任务涉及在一个桌子上对象集，讨论了其重要性和相关性方面的事情他们执行特定的任务 - 这最终成为一种生存任务 - 条款，然后评价它们的价值和如何他们以为他们是重要的。远程合作者是来自我们的群里，他们使用了三种不同的技术之一，与参与者互动的实验者。因此，第一，只是在屏幕上。因此，这就像今天的视频会议。其次是增加流动性，于是产生了一个移动基站屏幕。这就好比，如果你与任何临场感机器人今天熟悉的 - 这是镜像这种情况。然后充分表现MeBot。
因此，经过互动，我们请人率随着技术的互动品质，与远程的合作者，通过这种在许多不同的方式技术。我们看了心理参与 - 多少同情你为其他人有什么感觉？我们着眼于全面参与。我们看着他们希望合作。这就是我们看到时，他们只使用屏幕上。原来，当你添加移动 - 能够滚绕着桌子 - 你得到一个增加一点。你会得到更多的刺激甚至当你添加一个完整的表达。因此，似乎这样的体育社会体现居然真的有差别。
现在让我们尝试把一点点的情况下这一点。今天，我们知道，家庭生活越行越远，这是绝对需要的家庭关系，家庭关系及以上的距离收费。对我来说，我有三个小男孩，我希望他们有一个非常好的关系，他们的祖父母。但我的父母住在千里之外，所以他们根本不会看到对方，常常。我们尝试的Skype，我们尝试打电话，但我的小男孩 - 他们并不真的要谈，他们要玩。他们爱的距离大约为发挥技术优势的新型机器人的思维观念。所以，我想象一个时间不是很远​​了 - 我的妈妈可以到自己的电脑，开辟成一个小机器人浏览器和杰克。正如奶奶，机器人，她现在可以发挥，真正发挥，与我的儿子，孙子和她在现实世界里，他真正的玩具。我能想象到的祖母能够与他们的孙女社会玩弄他们的朋友，并能分享房子周围的其他各种活动，也愿意和一个睡前故事。并通过这种技术，能够在他们的孙子的生活的积极参与者的方式，是不可能的今天。
让我们来想想一些其他领域譬如健康。因此，在今天的美国，超过百分之65的人是超重或肥胖，而现在它是一个大问题，我们的孩子很好。我们知道，当你在生活中长大，如果你当你年轻的肥胖，可以导致慢性疾病，不仅可以减少我们的生活质量，但对我们是一个巨大的经济负担的医疗制度。但是如果机器人可以从事，如果我们想配合机器人，如果机器人有说服力，也许可以帮助您维护机器人的饮食和运动计划，也许他们可以帮助你管理你的体重。所以有点像一个数字吉米尼 - 作为国内知名的童话故事 - 存在的友好支持那种总是有能帮助你在恰当的时间以正确的方式正确的决定，帮助你形成健康的习惯。所以，我们实际上在我们的实验室研究的想法。
这是一个机器人，Autom。科里为他的博士基德开发这种机器人的工作。它被设计成一个机器人的饮食和运动教练。它有一个简单的非语言表达能力，它可以做情侣。它可以和你眼神接触。它可以共享信息看屏幕了。你会使用屏幕界面输入信息，比如你吃了多少卡路里那一天，你有多大的锻炼。然后，它可以帮助对你的轨道。和机器人说话带有合成语音进行培训后，病人等你模仿教练的对话。而且，它还将通过对话建立一个与您合作联盟。它可以帮助你设定目标，跟踪您的进展，这将有助于激励你。
所以，一个有趣的问题是，是否体现了社会真的重要吗？这很重要，它是一个机器人？难道真的只是提供咨询和信息方面的质量？因此，要解决这个问题，我们做了一个在波士顿地区，我们提出了几个星期的时间三在人们的家庭干预措施之一研究。一个例子是机器人，你看到那里，Autom。另一个是计算机运行相同的触摸屏界面，跑完全一样的对话。该建议的质量是相同的。第三是刚刚用笔和纸记录，因为这是标准的干预通常在启动时获得的饮食和运动计划。
因此，我们的事情真的很想去看看那个没有多少人失去了重量，但实际上多久，他们与机器人互动。由于面临的挑战是不减肥，它实际上是保持它关闭。而你越能够与这些干预措施之一，清楚的指示，潜在的长期成功。所以，首先我想看看是多久，多久没人与这些系统进行交互。原来，人们与机器人互动更加明显，尽管该建议的质量是相同的计算机。当问及该联盟的工作质量方面的人来评分，评分人高，他们的机器人，机器人更多的信任。 （众笑）当你在情感的参与来看，这是完全不同的。人们会名称的机器人。他们将衣服上的机器人。 （众笑），甚至当我们拿出拿起在研究结束的机器人，他们会到车上去了，说再见的机器人。他们并没有用电脑的。
最后我想讲的是对儿童的媒体的未来。我们知道，孩子们花了很多时间屏幕背后的今天，无论是电视或电脑游戏或诸如此类的东西。我的儿子，他们喜欢在屏幕上。他们喜欢的画面。但我希望他们发挥;作为一个母亲，我想让他们像真正的世界发挥作用。所以我有一个在我集团新项目，我想向大家介绍游戏时间计算叫那真的是在思考什么的所以有关数字媒体参与和字面上把它关闭屏幕成今天的孩子，现实世界，在那里可以采取的现实世界发挥的许多属性。因此，这里的这一思想，人物可以是物理或虚拟的第一口勘探，并在数位内容可以从字面上来关闭屏幕，走向世界和背部。我喜欢这所想的这种混合现实播放雅达利乒乓球。
但是，我们可以进一步推动这一想法。如果 - （游戏）弥敦道：在这里而来。耶！伯恩斯坦： - 字符本身可以进入你的世界？事实证明，孩子们喜欢把它当字符变成了现实，并进入到他们的世界。当它在他们的世界的，他们能与它，用它的方式发挥的根本是他们怎样发挥它在屏幕上有所不同。另一个重要的想法是这样的人物在现实持久的概念。因此，改变儿童对现实世界有需要翻译到虚拟世界。所以在这里，弥敦道，改变了字母A到号码2。你可以想象，也许这些字符的特殊符号赋予的权力，当它进入虚拟世界去。因此，他们现在发送的字符回那个世界。现在它有多少权力。
然后终于，我一直试图在这里做的是创建一个孩子，他们真的觉得自己是那个故事，一个是经验的一部分真的身临其境的体验。我真希望能激发他们的想象力的方式我是作为一个小女孩引发看“星球大战”。但我想多做点事情。其实我是想他们创造的经验。我希望他们能够把这些经验字面建立自己的想象力，让他们自己。因此，我们一直在探索与现实的临场感和混合很多想法简直让孩子到这个项目的空间，让其他孩子们可以与它们进行交互和借鉴他们的想法。我真的要来与孩子们的新媒体的方式，培养创造力和学习和创新了。我认为这是非常，非常重要。
所以这是一个新的项目。我们邀请到这个空间的孩子很多，他们认为这很酷。但我可以告诉你，他们喜欢的东西最多的是机器人。他们所关心的是机器人。机器人在我们接触的东西深深人类。所以，无论他们是帮助我们成为创造性和创新性，或者他们是否可以帮我们更加深刻地感到，尽管距离连接，或者他们是否是我们值得信赖的搭档谁的帮助我们实现成为我们的最高和最自我的个人目标对我来说，机器人与人有关的一切。
谢谢。
（鼓掌）
-----------------
Cynthia Breazeal: The rise of personal robots
Ever since I was a little girl seeing "Star Wars" for the first time, I've been fascinated by this idea of personal robots. And as a little girl, I loved the idea of a robot that interacted with us much more like a helpful, trusted sidekick -- something that would delight us, enrich our lives and help us save a galaxy or two. So I knew robots like that didn't really exist, but I knew I wanted to build them.
So 20 years pass -- I am now a graduate student at MIT studying artificial intelligence, the year is 1997, and NASA has just landed the first robot on Mars. But robots are still not in our home, ironically. And I remember thinking about all the reasons why that was the case. But one really struck me. Robotics had really been about interacting with things, not with people -- certainly not in a social way that would be natural for us and would really help people accept robots into our daily lives. For me, that was the white space, that's what robots could not do yet. And so that year, I started to build this robot, Kismet, the world's first social robot. So three years later -- a lot of programming, working with other graduate students in the lab -- Kismet was ready to start interacting with people.
(Video) Scientist: I want to show you something.
Kismet: (Nonsense).
Scientist: This is a watch that my girlfriend gave me.
Kismet: (Nonsense).
Scientist: Yeah, look, it's got a little blue light in it too. I almost lost it this week.
Cynthia Breazeal: So Kismet interacted with people like kind of a non-verbal child or pre-verbal child, which I assume was fitting because it was really the first of its kind. It didn't speak language, but it didn't matter. This little robot was somehow able to tap into something deeply social within us. And with that, the promise of an entirely new way we could interact with robots.
So over the past several years I've been continuing to explore this interpersonal dimension of robots, now at the media lab with my own team of incredibly talented students. And one of my favorite robots is Leonardo. We developed Leonardo in collaboration with Stan Winston Studio. And so I want to show you a special moment for me of Leo. This is Matt Berlin interacting with Leo, introducing Leo to a new object. And because it's new, Leo doesn't really know what to make of it. But sort of like us, he can sort of learn about it from watching Matt's reaction.
(Video) Matt Berlin: Hello, Leo. Leo, this is Cookie Monster. Can you find Cookie Monster? Leo, Cookie Monster is very bad. He's very bad, Leo. Cookie Monster is very, very bad. He's a scary monster. He wants to get your cookies.
(Laughter)
CB: All right, so Leo and Cookie might have gotten off to a little bit of a rough start, but they get along great now.
So what I've learned through building these systems is that robots are actually a really intriguing social technology. Where it's actually their ability to push our social buttons and to interact with us like a partner that is a core part of their functionality. And with that shift in thinking, we can now start to imagine new questions, new possibilities for robots that we might not have thought about otherwise. But what do I mean when I say "push our social buttons?" Well, one of the things that we've learned is that, if we design these robots to communicate with us using the same body language, the same sort of non-verbal cues that people use -- like Nexi, our humanoid robot is doing here -- what we find is that people respond to robots a lot like they respond to people. People use these cues to determine things like how persuasive someone is, how likable, how engaging, how trustworthy. It turns out it's the same for robots.
It's turning out now that robots are actually becoming a really interesting new scientific tool to understand human behavior. To answer questions like, how is it that, from a brief encounter, we're able to make an estimate of how trustworthy another person is? Mimicry's believed to play a role, but how? Is it the mimicking of particular gestures that matter? It turns out it's really hard to learn this or understand this from watching people because when we interact we do all of these cues automatically. We can't carefully control them because they're subconscious for us. But with the robot you can.
And so in this video here -- this is a video taken from David DeSteno's lab at Northeastern University. He's a psychologist we've been collaborating with. There's actually a scientist carefully controlling Nexi's cues to be able to study this question. And the bottom line is -- the reason why this works is -- because it turns out people just behave like people even when interacting with a robot. So given that key insight, we can now start to imagine new kinds of applications for robots. For instance, if robots do respond to our non-verbal cues, maybe they would be a cool, new communication technology. So imagine this: What about a robot accessory for your cellphone? You call your friend, she puts her handset in a robot, and, bam!, you're a MeBot -- you can make eye contact, you can talk with your friends, you can move around, you can gesture -- maybe the next best thing to really being there, or is it?
To explore this question my student, Siggy Adalgeirsson, did a study where we brought human participants, people, into our lab to do a collaborative task with a remote collaborator. The task involved things like looking at a set of objects on the table, discussing them in terms of their importance and relevance to performing a certain task -- this ended up being a survival task -- and then rating them in terms of how valuable and important they thought they were. The remote collaborator was an experimenter from our group where they used one of three different technologies to interact with the participants. So the first was just the screen. So this is just like video conferencing today. The next was to add mobility, so have the screen on a mobile base. This is like, if you're familiar with any of the telepresence robots today -- this is mirroring that situation. And then the fully expressive MeBot.
So after the interaction, we asked people to rate their quality of interaction with the technology, with a remote collaborator, through this technology in a number of different ways. We looked at psychological involvement -- how much empathy did you feel for the other person? We looked at overall engagement. We looked at their desire to cooperate. And this is what we see when they use just the screen. It turns out when you add mobility -- the ability to roll around the table -- you get a little more of a boost. And you get even more of a boost when you add the full expression. So it seems like this physical social embodiment actually really makes a difference.
Now let's try to put this into a little bit of context. Today we know that families are living farther and farther apart, and that definitely takes a toll on family relationships and family bonds over distance. For me, I have three young boys, and I want them to have a really good relationship with their grandparents. But my parents live thousands of miles away, so they just don't get to see each other that often. We try Skype, we try phone calls, but my boys are little -- they don't really want to talk, they want to play. They love the idea of thinking about robots as a new kind of distance play technology. So I imagine a time not too far from now -- my mom can go to her computer, open up a browser and jack into a little robot. And as grandma-bot, she can now play, really play, with my sons, with her grandsons, in the real world with his real toys. I could imagine grandmothers being able to do social plays with their granddaughters, with their friends, and to be able to share all kinds of other activities around the house, like sharing a bedtime story. And through this technology, being able to be an active participant in their grandchildren's lives in a way that's not possible today.
Let's think about some other domains, like maybe health. So in the United States today, over 65 percent of people are either overweight or obese, and now it's a big problem with our children as well. And we know that as you get older in life, if you're obese when you're younger, that can lead to chronic diseases that not only reduce our quality of life, but are a tremendous economic burden on our health care system. But if robots can be engaging, if we like to cooperate with robots, if robots are persuasive, maybe a robot can help you maintain a diet and exercise program, maybe they can help you manage your weight. So sort of like a digital Jiminy -- as the well-known fairy tale -- a kind of friendly supportive presence that's always there to be able to help you make the right decision in the right way, at the right time, to help you form healthy habits. So we actually explored this idea in our lab.
This is a robot, Autom. Cory Kidd developed this robot for his doctoral work. And it was designed to be a robot diet and exercise coach. It had a couple of simple non-verbal skills it could do. It could make eye contact with you. It could share information looking down at a screen. You'd use a screen interface to enter information, like how many calories you ate that day, how much exercise you got. And then it could help track that for you. And the robot spoke with a synthetic voice to engage you in a coaching dialogue modeled after trainers and patients and so forth. And it would build a working alliance with you through that dialogue. It could help you set goals and track your progress, and it would help motivate you.
So an interesting question is, does the social embodiment really matter? Does it matter that it's a robot? Is it really just the quality of advice and information that matters? So to solve that question, we did a study in the Boston area where we put one of three interventions in people's homes for a period of several weeks. One case was the robot you saw there, Autom. Another was a computer that ran the same touch-screen interface, ran exactly the same dialogues. The quality of advice was identical. And the third was just a pen and paper log, because that's the standard intervention you typically get when you start a diet and exercise program.
So one of the things we really wanted to look at was not how much weight people lost, but really how long they interacted with the robot. Because the challenge is not losing weight, it's actually keeping it off. And the longer you could interact with one of these interventions, well that's indicative, potentially, of longer term success. So the first thing I want to look at is how long, how long did people interact with these systems. It turns out that people interacted with the robot significantly more, even though the quality of the advice was identical to the computer. When it asked people to rate it on terms of the quality of the working alliance, people rated the robot higher and they trusted the robot more. (Laughter) And when you look at emotional engagement, it was completely different. People would name the robots. They would dress the robots. (Laughter) And even when we would come up to pick up the robots at the end of the study, they would come out to the car and say good-bye to the robots. They didn't do this with a computer.
The last thing I want to talk about today is the future of children's media. We know that kids spend a lot of time behind screens today, whether it's television or computer games or whatnot. My sons, they love the screen. They love the screen. But I want them to play; as a mom I want them to play like real world play. And so I have a new project in my group I wanted to present to you today called Playtime Computing that's really trying to think about what's so engaging about digital media and literally bring it off the screen, into the real world of the child, where it can take on many of the properties of real world play. So here's the first exploration of this idea, where characters can be physical or virtual, and where the digital content can literally come off the screen, into the world and back. I like to think of this as the Atari Pong of this blended reality play.
But we can push this idea further. What if -- (Game) Nathan: Here it comes. Yay! CB: -- the character itself could come into your world? It turns out that kids love it when the character becomes real and enters into their world. And when it's in their world, they can relate to it and play with it in a way that's fundamentally different from how they play with it on the screen. Another important idea is this notion of persistence of character across realities. So changes that children make in the real world need to translate to the virtual world. So here, Nathan has changed the letter A to the number 2. You can imagine maybe these symbols give the characters special powers when it goes into the virtual world. So they are now sending the character back into that world. And now it's got number power.
And then finally, what I've been trying to do here is create a really immersive experience for kids, where they really feel like they are part of that story, a part of that experience. And I really want to spark their imaginations the way mine was sparked as a little girl watching "Star Wars." But I want to do more than that. I actually want them to create those experiences. I want them to be able to literally build their imagination into these experiences and make them their own. So we've been exploring with a lot of ideas in telepresence and mixed reality to literally allow kids to project their ideas into this space where other kids can interact with them and build upon them. I really want to come up with new ways of children's media that foster creativity and learning and innovation. I think that's very, very important.
So this is a new project. We've invited a lot of kids into this space, and they think it's pretty cool. But I can tell you, the thing that they love the most is the robot. What they care about is the robot. Robots touch something deeply human within us. And so whether they're helping us to become creative and innovative, or whether they're helping us to feel more deeply connected despite distance, or whether they are our trusted sidekick who's helping us attain our personal goals in becoming our highest and best selves, for me, robots are all about people.
Thank you.
(Applause)