The New York Times interviewed Bina48, a replicant owned by proponents of a digital afterlife.

Modern robots don’t make the best conversationalists. That’s something that New York Times reporter Amy Harmon found out the hard way. She recently published her interview with Bina48, a robotic head created by Hanson Robotics based on the appearance and memories of a real human being – Bina Rothblatt. The $125,000 system was purchased by Martina Rothblatt, Bina’s spouse and a ground breaking lawyer/entrepreneur in satellite radio technology. As you can see in the following video of Harmon’s interview the pricey robot head looks cool, but like most chatterbots it produces a conversation full of confusion, distractions, and frustrations. Even with its limitations, Bina48 may be the herald of greater things to come. The Rothblatts, through their Terasem Movement Foundation, are pursuing artificial intelligence, longevity, and digital resurrection. Could we all live forever through replicants? Would anyone want to talk to us if we do?

Creating a digital version of yourself is a fairly common science fiction trope that may actually make its way into the real world. Robot manufacturers, like Hanson Robotics and Kokoro, are creating the hardware – animatronic shells with rubber skin that mimic human facial expressions. Hanson has had some success on the software side of things as well. His Phillip K. Dick replicant was able to talk and answer questions like the famous scifi author, and his Einstein robot, though not strictly aiming to reproduce the scientist’s personality, is a much-sought-after robot on the conference circuit. The Bina48 robot is a little less polished than either of those predecessors, but it demonstrates how an average person could be translated into a digital program that speaks through a robotic clone.

Would this digitally resurrected version of yourself be recognizable as you? Not if we created it today. The Bina48 robot is an interesting device. It can make eye contact, and even recognize faces it knows (to some degree). Using an Internet connection it can get some deeper information to answer questions, and it’s likely that it occasionally draws on Bina Rothblatt’s data for some of its personality and desires (does the real Bina like to garden?). Yet its conversation skills seem no better than those chatbots that aren’t based on real people. As Harmon writes in her NY Times article, prolonged interaction with Bina can lead to day dreams of strangling the robot.

So an average human is unlikely to be well translated into a computer medium. Not that the Rothblatt’s are exactly your most average couple. Martina is a highly paid executive with a history of entrepreneurship in satellite radio and other telecomm industries. Bina likewise has experience in telecomm. Martina was also born a man and underwent sexual reassignment surgery, which she talked about on Howard Stern’s satellite radio show. Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the first people who pursue digital copies of themselves are likely to have more financial means and unique perspective on identities than the average technophile.

I should also mention that Martina Rothblatt is one of the executive producers for Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near film, whose New York debut we recently covered. That film discusses the creation of artificial life, as well as digital copies of ourselves. The rights of such ‘individuals’ is one of the key themes explored in the movie.

There's little chance you'd mistake the real Bina Rothblatt for her replicant. But one day we may need to find ways of distinguishing the two.

If the Rothblatts have their way, there could be many more such creatures. Their Terasem Movement Foundation is aimed at promoting the preservation and creation of human consciousness as digital life. Terasem regularly meets, discusses, and funds projects that may one day be able to create a computer copy of you. One of their projects, CyBeRev, is a sort of free online database where you can store your memories and documents in the hopes of one day using such information to create a digital avatar. They are a little limited on describing what technology will eventually be used to ‘revive’ you, but they accept a wide range of data (photos, writing, records) so there’s a fairly good chance that something you upload would be helpful somehow. But even if you never use it, it is free of charge. We may not all have $125,000 to spend on robotic replicants, but the Rothblatts and Terasem seem determined to grant everyone the potential to recreate some semblance of themselves as artificial intelligence.

While Bina48 seems less than personable now, I expect the capabilities of robots like it to improve in the years ahead. Better animatronics and facial expression routines may pull these replicants out of the uncanny valley just as improved conversation algorithms will make interacting with them less frustrating. The bigger question is, of course, whether these human-based programs will ever actually be considered intelligent. If that does happen, will we consider them to be copies of their human counterparts, progeny, or a continuation of the biological organism in digital form. Just as we’ve used and updated the Turing test to qualify what counts as AI, we may need to come up with some means of determining if a digital version of yourself is really you (with all the rights that implies), or just an amazing simulacrum. Looking at Bina48 that test seems pretty easy for the moment. The robot may look like Bina Rothblatt, but it’s far from human.

[screen capture and video credit: New York Times]
[sources: NYT, CyBeRev.org, Terasem Movement]

David Hanson (right) wants to create robots that can understand and display emotions.

Are the robots of the future going to be cold-hearted automatons or loving empathetic androids? David Hanson, founder and head of Hanson Robotics, is working to make sure that robots know how humans are feeling, and teaching them to mimic those emotions. Over the past eight years, Hanson has created over 20 life like synthetic faces, disturbingly real replicants, that seem to talk and respond as if they were human. Check out the robotics genius’ awesome facial hair during his quick five minute presentation video from TED 2009 below.

I often debate with people about whether or not computers and robots will ever reach or exceed human intelligence. There are many who believe that the human mind and spirit is simply too complex and beautiful to be replicated in a machine. Our emotional intelligence, they say, is beyond the reach of any artificial intelligence. I think Hanson’s presentation points to the possibility that robots will in fact be able to achieve some level of emotional intelligence. His robotic ‘characters’ can follow human faces, and mimic their expressions. Working with the Machine Perception Lab at UC San Diego, Hanson will create robots that can correlate key movements of your face with emotional states. These are the first steps towards emotional acuity, as demonstrated by human infants every day. Along with projects like iCub, Hanson’s work could help build robots that learn like children. Hopefully they will develop into robots that know how to care for others.

We mentioned Hanson’s TED talk, and the appearance of the Einstein replicant, in our first story about the robotics company, so it’s great to finally be able to watch the video. However, I’m really disappointed they only gave him five minutes of stage time. You can tell from Hanson’s fast paced explanations that he had a lot more to say. I certainly have more questions: Have the algorithms used for the Phillip K Dick android been improved in the last four years? Do any of the replicants make their own choices about which facial expressions to use when, or is everything tightly scripted? How much wax does it take to get that ‘stache to stay so pointy?

Of course, the great thing about Hanson Robotics is that they are dedicated to their work. That means we’re likely to see many more ‘character’ robots that are advancing emotionally. It will be interesting to see if Hanson, or any robotics engineer, can successfully merge learning machines with expressive animatronics. After all, we don’t just want robots that have emotional intelligence, we also want robots with whom we can identify. Singularity Hub has explored many different kinds of human-computer interfaces, but it may be that the most successful interplay between machines and people will also be the most basic: face to face conversation.

[photo credit: Hanson Robotics]
[video credit: TED 2009]

Will the world of Surrogates come true?

Well, a new micro-documentary on Wired.com is questioning just how much fiction there is in this science. With commentary from the director and some key experts in the field, The Science-Fact Behind Surrogates is out to show that the technology we have today is laying the foundation for the reality of the film. Watch the micro-documentary video after the break.

Surrogates is set in the year 2054, when everyone stays at home and sends beautiful android versions of themselves out into the world. It’s the ultimate form of telepresence, and futurist Dr. James Canton believes it could happen in the next decade or so. Canton isn’t the only expert weighing in during the documentary. Anybots, which the hub covered previously, make robots that operate through telepresence and demonstrate that humans can already interact through their artificial minions.

So we have remote controlled robots, but what about the rest of the technology promised in Surrogates? Singularity Hub has already told you about haptics, feeling what your robot feels, and Braingate, the technology of reading your mind in order to control computers and machines. This stuff is here today. Super good looking and super strong robots obeying our every command? Well, Hanson robotics and Cyberdyne technologies have you covered there as well. We’re so close people, so close.

Question is, do we want to be? The Surrogates comics series isn’t a wholesale endorsement of the telepresence lifestyle. Far from it. Vendetti wrote Surrogates after reading about relationships that failed when someone became obsessed with online gaming and social networking. In the series, the writer lampoons the American obsession with idealized looks, surrogates come with mouth-watering physiques, and our willingness to trade safety with freedom. Or rather, our belief that safety is freedom. The whole comic (and movie, I presume) revolves around a plot by a terrorist to destroy all surrogates everywhere. It’s a technophobe versus technophile conflict that futurists have been worried about for a while. It got brought up at the debut of the Transcendent Man documentary, and it reflects the real doubt some have about whether or not humans are losing their humanity in the technological ether.

Forget the heavy stuff for a while, though, and just enjoy the smash-’em bash-’em romp that I’m sure Surrogates will be. The trailer looks fun and the movie website even has a place where you can design your own virtual stand-in. Heck, we can start taking bets on whether or not Surrogates or AVATAR will be the biggest blockbuster starring remote controlled androids this year. The future may hold impressive decisions about the nature of human interaction but for now the biggest choice you have to make is if you want to go out and see the movie. I might just send someone in my stead.

SURROGATES trailer in HD

What makes a robot smile?

Dr. David Franklin Hanson, Jr , the founder of Hanson Robotics, owes much of his success to Frubber. Frubber is a revolutionary material with a porous structure that allows it to move similarly to human tissue. Previously used materials were too heavy and too stiff. Using Frubber, Hanson can create a wide range of realistic facial expressions while cutting the need for powerful actuators. Typical applications using Frubber consume more than 20 times less power than with traditional materials. A realistic face and neck can run for hours using just a few AA batteries.

…Believe It or Not

The engineers at Hanson Robotics appreciate good science fiction. That’s why in 2005 they built a realistic replicant of author Phillip K. Dick (Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly and many others). Using information about the authors life, voice recordings, and an AI program, they were able to create an interactive experience. Here’s a great video from WIRED:

After Phillip Dick, other great science luminaries were sure to come. In 2006, Hanson teamed up with Hubo robotics in Korea to form a fully articulate android… of Albert Einstein. Whereas the Phillip animatronic just sat down, this new android could move around. Since it’s creation this android, and the detached robotic head, have been big crowd favorites. It recently appeared, along with other Hanson creations, at the 2009 TED conference. Check out the original Hubo/Hanson session in the video below:

Undoubtedly the success of these replicants is largely due to Frubber and fame. We perceive realistic facial expressions on celebrities and we overlook the shortcomings. It’s the same set of conditions that makes a wax museum successful. In addition, however, Hanson robots can also maintain eye contact. Using face tracking software, the replicants know where to look and how to move to keep their audience interested. Coupled with an interactive program that can learn from past conversations, these developments push the Hanson robots closer and closer to the Uncanny Valley.

The Uncanny Valley is that point where a simulated being becomes too realistic too enjoy. It’s a classic concept in robotics: develop something vaguely human and it will be cute. Create something too life- like and we will be disturbed by its imperfections. Hanson robotics doesn’t believe in the Uncanny Valley. Or rather, they think they have a solution: the Bridge of Engaging Design.

In Hanson’s view, people will accept things in art that might disturb them in reality. Horror movies or sculptures by Ron Mueck, we appreciate these things even though they lie in the middle of the Uncanny Valley. The desire to understand and anthropomorphize can permit viewers to enjoy a piece of art at all levels of realism. In that way, Hanson’s work is less disturbing than it is intriguing.

Bringing It Back to the Singularity

One of Hanson’s latest projects is called Zeno. Zeno is an anime style robot designed for entertainment and toy sales. He can walk, dance, and interact with others. His programming adopts the developments from previous Hanson projects: he adapts in conversation, maintains eye contact, and has limited learning. As part of his purpose as merchandise, he even comes with a great background story that could be included in literature, movies, or other media. You see, Zeno is the hero of the Singularity.

That’s right, in a meta-physical field day of fact and fiction, Zeno’s backstory details how he starts off as a toy in present day. By 2029 (Kurzweil fans will recognize the date), Zeno develops a greater intelligence and starts to question his existence. After the requisite government kidnapping and installation in a secret robot academy, Zeno meets new friends and helps save humanity and robots alike. Thus Zeno is the hero of both mankind and robokind. Well, it’s cute, but like so many things from Hanson Robotics, it’s a little weird. I mean you’re playing with a toy that claims it will one day develop from a toy into a sentient being. That has to make you a little cautious. “Sure Zeno, you can have some more batteries, just remember me when the revolution comes.”

Whether in toys, movies, or interactive displays, Hanson Robotics and its replicants are pushing the boundaries of what people will accept as human or human-like. Either with Frubber, or the next great material, engineers will keep improving the facial expressions, programmers will improve conversation software, and voice generation/recognition can only get better. While the animatronic faces and voices are imperfect (and in my opinion a little creepy), Hanson Robotics may be correct: in the end there may not really be an Uncanny Valley, just an audience that is hungry for new and innovative design. To those waiting for the next form of entertainment there’s likely no such thing as “too real.”