resolution foundation robotics conference slides
TRANSCRIPT
1
Resolution Foundation Robotics Conference
Evolution or revolution? Developments in robotics and the
changing world of work
@resfoundation / #RFrobotics
2
Session 1: Facing the future - new frontiers in robotics
Doctor Takanori Shibata, AIST JapanProfessor Alan Winfield, UWE
Professor Kerstin Dautenhahn, University of Hertfordshire
Ankur Modi, StatusTodayChair: David Willetts, Resolution Foundation
The Robots and Autonomous Systems of the Bristol Robotics
Laboratory
Facing the future: new frontiers in robotics
Resolution Foundation Robotics ConferenceScience Museum, London
4 July 2016
Alan FT WinfieldBristol Robotics LaboratoryScience Communication Unit
Real World Robots
The First WaveThe First Wave
The Second Wave
Robots and humans working together
The BERT2 robot is able to comprehend voice
commands as well as simple hand gestures
http://www.chrisfp7.eu/
The Anchor Robotics Personalised Assisted Living Studio
6
Bio inspired robotics: artificial whiskers
www.whiskerbot.org
The rat “sees” the world with its
whiskers. Scratchbot has artificial whiskers
just like a rat.
An artificial whisker module
Tactile sensing – Tactip artificial finger tip
`
Engineered Implementation
http://www.brl.ac.uk/researchthemes/medicalrobotics/tactip.aspx
Remote tele-haptics: allows us to transmit the sense of touch
Tactile sensing – Tactip artificial finger tip
`
Engineered Implementation
http://www.brl.ac.uk/researchthemes/medicalrobotics/tactip.aspx
Remote tele-haptics: allows us to transmit the sense of touch
Medical and surgical robotics
http://brl.ac.uk/research/researchthemes/medicalrobotics.aspx
The wearable hand: an exo-skeleton for post-stroke therapy
Image-based robotic system for enhanced minimally invasive intra-articular fracture surgeries, ICRA 2016
Medical and surgical robotics
Dr Sabine Hauert, Wired magazine 2015
This swarm of 1000 ‘kilobots’ is used to model nano-particles for cancer treatmenthttp://sabinehauert.com/
Urine-tricity: Electricity from waste water
ANODE
CATHODE
http://www.brl.ac.uk/researchthemes/bioenergyselfsustainable/urine-tricity.aspx
Pee power at Glastonbury June 2016
Microbial Fuel Cell
Driverless cars
VENTURER aims to establish a test facility for connected and autonomous vehicleshttp://www.venturer-cars.com/
FLOURISH is developing user-centric autonomous vehicle technology and
connected transport systemshttp://www.designability.org.uk/researchproject/flourish/
The AI: Verification and Validation
Trustworthy Robotic Assistantswww.robosafe.org
Verifiable Autonomyhttp://wordpress.csc.liv.ac.uk/va/
http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~michael/VaVAS/
The Innovation Pipeline
Dawn RoboticsOmnidynamics
http://brl.ac.uk/businessengagement/technologyincubation1.aspx
Acknowledgements
• All of my Colleagues in the BRL, but especially• Prof Chris Melhuish• Prof Tony Pipe• Prof Ioannis Ieropoulos• Prof John Greenman• Prof Sanja Dogramadzi• Prof Praminda Caleb-Solly• Dr Kerstin Eder• Dr Sabine Hauert• Dr Martin Pearson• Dr Dieter Vanderelst• Ian Horsfield
www.brl.ac.uk
Neurological Therapeutic Medical Robot, PARO,
for Non-pharmacological Therapy
Takanori ShibataNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)Tokyo Institute of TechnologyThe Age Lab., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Contents
Animal TherapySeal Robot, PARORobot Therapy around the WorldDiscussion
Animal Assisted Therapy/Activity
Psychological Merits Cheer Motivation
Physiological Merits Stress Reduction Rehabilitation
Social Merits Encourage Communication
Problems of Owning Animals
AllergiesBitesInfectionHouse regulation
Difficult to introduce!
Therapeutic Seal Robot: PARO
Model: Baby of Harp Seal
Purposes of Robots
Industrial Robot Service Robot
Physical Service Psychological/EmotionalService
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Objective Measures Cheap Fast Accurate
Subjective Measures Interesting Beautiful Comfortable
Automated Machine Aesthetic ObjectHome Appliance
EntertainmentMedical Welfare
Industrial RobotsWorking with Humans
Mental Commitment Robot
Seal Robot, PARO, for Therapy9th Generation
10 CPUs32bit RISC, etc
Posture Sensor
neck(2), each front fin(1), rear fins(1),each eyelid(1)
Actuator×7
Light Sensors×2
Vision
Microphone×3Audition
Weight: 2.5 kg
・ Ubiquitous Surface Tactile Sensor ×12
・ Artificial Fur (Anti-biotic)
Touch
・Whisker Tactile Sensor
Size:L:550 x W:290 x H:180 mm
Voice RecognitionLearning Functions:
• New Name• Change Behavior
PARO’s Inside (X-ray in NY, 2006)
Safety and DependabilityCE, RoHS, and other regulations
Anti-bacterial, Hair-Loss Prevention, and Soil Resistant Finish in Artificial Fur
Electromagnetic ShieldCoping with Strong Force by HumansEasy Usage and Maintenance
One Switch and Pacifier Type Battery Charger
Tough StructureDrop TestStroking Test (100,000 times)Anti-Electrostatic Voltage Test (20,000
Volt)
Technical Points
Ubiquitous Surface Tactile Sensor
Automatic Chip Mounter Six Layered Print Circuit
PARO Factory
Aesthetic PointsHandmade for Quality
Eyelashes Trimming
PARO on the World Map(in more than 30 countries)
Place where Paro has been used
4500 PAROs in Practical Use2500 PAROs in Japan since 2005
50% are individuals, and 40% are institutionsAbout 300 PAROs in Denmark since 2009
80% municipalities adopted PAROsNL, FR, DE, CH, UK & other EU countries
100% are institutions Seminar and Certification Health Insurance of Germany
In the US, since Dec. 2009 Medical Device by FDA
Science Museum, London, UK Jan. – Mar. 2002 (video)
Guinness World Records (Feb. 2002)PARO: The Most Therapeutic Robot
Observed Effects for Elderly with Dementia
Improve Depression, Anxiety, Pain, Sleep, Loneliness, QOL, etc.
Reduce StressImprove Communication and
Sociability Reduce Aggression, Wandering, etc.
Reduce Burden of CareReduce Risk of FallingReduce Psychotropic Medications
(PRNs)
Alzheimer Patient with Anxiety(Italy, since Feb. 2005)
National Health Service, the UK
Sheffield, the UK
NHS meeting on PAROin Brighton, UK on March 4th, 2016
SystemSURE Plus protocol (2013) for swab testing irregular surfaces
Area of PARO 10 x 10 cm fur tested
Initial score (>30 = fail) RLU
After 1 min clean RLU
After 2 min cleanRLU
Head fur 26 Right Flipper 57 28 0Left Flipper 60 56 0Bottom (where on/off switch is)
30
Top Left Back area 29 Top right back area 162 59 16Stomach (underneath) 79 Head 39
Clinell wipes (green)
VA Reno, US (March, 2014)Dementia and PTSD
Healthy Ageing with PAROfor Active Senior
20 Women with Ovarian Cancer (49-71: ave. 67)Chemotherapy for 3 – 5 hoursInteraction with PARO reduce・ Pain (P = .04), Fatigue (P = .034), Anxiety (P = .036)・ Improve 9 factors of Quality of Life on Health (P = .03)UC Irvine and Long Beach Memorial Hospital, CA, USA(Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) 44th Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer, 351, 2013)
Cancer PatientsChemotherapy with PARO
Boston Higashi School for Children with Autism (Feb. 26, 2009)
Robot Therapy at Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden (Oct. 2003 - )
Astrid Lindgrens Pediatric Hospital
LIVA
The End
parorobots.com
Kerstin DautenhahnAdaptive Systems Research GroupUniversity of Hertfordshire
Robot-Assisted Play for Children with Autism
©University of Hertfordshire
Bridging the gap
Humanunpredictabilitycomplexity
Machinepredictabilitysimplicity
Behaviour
Understanding a system understanding behaviour understanding minds
Systemising Empathising
We see a lot of potential of children with autism (e.g. for joint attention) that often does not appear in typical comparisons with neurotypical children
Levels of potential benefits• Enjoyment (benefits for
child)• Engagement in social
interaction with other people (benefits for child/parent/other people)
• Learning and generalising social skills/ Therapeutic aspects (life skills, independent living)– long-term studies– Clinical aspects
Focus• Robot-assisted play• Tool in the hands of
therapists/teachers– Not a replacement– Not an extra burden
• Robot as a social mediator– Mediating between the
child and other people• Therapy-oriented (not
autism research)
Introduce KASPAR: Design Rationale
• Realistic but simplified human-like features• Child-sized• Robotic in nature• Different modes of operation, key-pad,
autonomous, hybrid
Body Language: (Dynamic) Expressions
“sad” “thinking”
“happy”
“goodbye”
Kaspar design• It looks like a toy
– …since children like to interact with toys– Children’s clothing– Child-sized, child-like but robotic appearance– Games that are fun
• But it is a complex mechatronic system– composed of over 800 parts – rather complicated software behind controlling all 22 motors, 19
pressure sensors, 2 video cameras (in the eyes), and various microcomputer controllers.
Key: User-centred design and research
• Kaspar’s design was inspired by autism research• Several iterations of redesign• Interactive games were programmed to be fun for
the children, and to have therapeutic and educational goals
• Interdisciplinary team of researchers: computer science, engineering, psychology, therapy
• Innovations not only in hardware and software design, but also in the methodology
Some results from studies with KASPAR
• Teaching imitation and turn-taking skills skills
• Cause and effect games and emotional expressions (“happy”, “sad”)
• Appropriate tactile social interaction• “if you are happy and you know it…”
(naming body parts, singing in a group)• Teaching child-child collaborative skills
Research with KASPAR• Case study evaluations with 100 children in
long-term interactions in schools– Quantitative data based on analysis of children’s
behaviour• Redesign of KASPAR• Field study has started in March 2015, using
KASPAR in homes of families• Use of KASPAR by teachers in schools for
several years, more schools will use KASPAR• Teachers at Tracks in Stevenage have been
using KASPAR with their pre-school children with autism for > 2 years
Developed a tool…
• for teachers/parents/siblings to assist interaction and communication with a child with autism
• for robot-assisted therapy according to defined developmental and therapeutic needs of individual children
Thank You
58
Resolution Foundation Robotics Conference
Evolution or revolution? Developments in robotics and the
changing world of work
@resfoundation / #RFrobotics
59
Session 2: Robot wars - what do robots mean for Britain’s labour market?
Professor Michael Osborne, University of OxfordOrna Ni-Chionna, Royal Mail
Sarah O’Connor, Financial TimesProfessor Alan Manning, LSE
Chair: Torsten Bell, Resolution Foundation
Robot wars: what do robots mean for Britain's labour
market?Resolution Foundation Robotics ConferenceTorsten Bell
July 2016
60
Click icon to add picture
Employment is at record highs…
61
…but robot angst is rife
62
Robots put 15 million UK jobs at risk, warns Bank of EnglandThe Independent
Robots will take over most jobs within 30 yearsThe Telegraph
The robots will
take our jobs.
Then what?
Forbes
Fast food workers
are becoming
obsoleteBusiness Insider
Goodbye jobs!
Welcome
machines!Die Zeit
Robots could
replace over 5
million jobs
The Telegraph
March of the machine makes idle handsNew York Times
Automation will mark the end of our work-obsessed societyThe Guardian
Workers see
‘robot revolution’
depriving them of
jobsNew York Times
Risks of automation have been quantified
63
‘Routineness’ has been a good predictor of past job losses
64
And overall employment masks big changes, driven in part by automation
65
Routine jobs were also typically middle-paying
66
But has there been a ‘hollowing out’ of the pay distribution?
67
But has there been a ‘hollowing out’ of the pay distribution? No
68
The ‘hollowing out’ of jobs in the middle……has been accompanied by a ‘filling in’ with new jobs
69
The case for more robots: 1) terrible productivity growth
70
The case for more robots: 2) Brexit might add to the need in some sectors
71
Robot angst has been rife for a long time
72
Resolution Foundation Robotics Conference
Evolution or revolution? Developments in robotics and the
changing world of work
@resfoundation / #RFrobotics
73
Robots and the Labour Market
Alan ManningCentre for Economic Performance
London School of Economics
Economics is almost entirely absent from the discussion – I will try to sketch why that might matter
• Output is produced by labour, machines, and technology, t (which affects the form of machines)
• New technology (robots) might mean:1. more output with same amount of labour and capital (few
would disagree with this)2. labour becomes less important in production (a lot have
argued it does)• Wages can fall in the short-run if (2) is true – (1) is
irrelevant• But wages rise in the long-run if (1) is true - (2) is
irrelevant
Returns to Labour and Capital
• Labour and Capital Earn their ‘Marginal Product’ i.e. their contribution to output
• With fixed capital we get result that wages fall if (2) is satisfied – (1) is irrelevant
• But capital is not fixed!• And things very different when it is variable
Variable Capital
• Cost of capital is interest rate + depreciation rate, normally think of this as constant
• Employ capital until marginal product equals cost of capital
• Now we expect that wages rise if (1) is satisfied – (2) is irrelevant
• i.e. long-run effect of new technology is always to raise average wages
Why is this?• As we use more robots, they themselves become cheaper
so we use lots of them – this acts to raise the productivity of workers which is what wages ultimately depend on
• What if there are lots of different goods/services:• using robots are cheaper, people have more money to spend
on other things creating jobs there – probably not new jobs, just more old jobs
• What if there are lots of different types of workers• Some types may lose• But average worker gains• And policy can make sure all benefit
Conclusion
• Please don’t write about the impact of robots on the labour market using a superficial analysis
• That’s why all previous warnings that new technology were going to cause the ‘end of work’ were wrong
• There are serious issues here but I am not sure current debates are getting to them
Some very simple economics(using simple algebra)
• Output is produced by labour, L, capital, K, and technology, t according to a production function F(L,K,t)
• Assume doubling L and K doubles output• Higher t means more output so we have• But suppose new technology also displaces
labour so we have that:
0Ft
2
0FL t
Returns to Labour and Capital
• Labour and Capital Earn their ‘Marginal Product’ i.e.:
• With fixed capital we get result that wage falls with robots
• But capital is not fixed!• And things very different when it is variable
, ,F L K tW
L
2 , ,F L K tWt L t
Variable Capital
• Cost of capital is interest rate + depreciation rate, r+δ, normally think of this as constant
• Employ capital until point where
• Total income to labour is:• And by envelope theorem:
• i.e. long-run effect of new technology is always to raise wages
, ,F L K tr
K
, ,WL F L K t r K
, ,0
F L K tWLt t
This is very simple – what if…
• Many types of goods– Same result
• Many types of labour– Some types may lose– But average worker gains– And policy can make sure all benefit
84
Resolution Foundation Robotics Conference
Evolution or revolution? Developments in robotics and the changing world of work
@resfoundation / #RFrobotics