read > college papers > english > man's new best friend
Man's New Best Friend
Disclaimer
- This text is copyrighted to Chirag Mehta, 2001.
- For reproduction / copyright information contact me.
- I've tried my best to make sure that all the information herein is 100% accurate.
- But you can't sue me if there are some discrepancies.
- And remember... Plagiarism is uncool.
Headers
- Chirag Mehta
- English 201: Tech. & Culture
- Prof. Gibbon
- 5 Apr. 2001
- Grade: A
Man's New Best Friend
-
In 1999, Sony Corporation, Japan, came out with "the first ‘physical virtual pet’ - in other words, a robot." (Louderbeck, 1999). Resembling a small dog, the robot is named Aibo, which stands for "Artificial Intelligence RoBOt" and also means "buddy" in Japanese. In the fall of 2000, Sony released a highly improved version, Aibo 2.0, at a much lower price and within a month over forty thousand advance orders were placed (Hamilton, 56). Priced at around $1500, Aibo is a toy for rich kids according to Louderbeck. However, with the price of component parts like electronic chips, sensors, and motors coming down steeply, the Aibo 3.0 that he "eagerly anticipates," would probably be priced so low that it would not be long before every kid on the block has one (Louderbeck, 2000). This will usher in a new era in human society; a day when every home has a playful pet robot; a day when humans have welcomed machines into their households with no qualms; a day when there remains no distinction between Aibo and Lassie. That day will call for the redefinition of the relationship between humans and animals, and humans and machines. The primary task herein will be to describe how a device like Aibo can alter the concepts that humans have about pets and robots. In other words, how does Aibo change the way people look at pets and how it affects the long held concepts about the robots of the future?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a "pet" as "a domestic or tamed animal kept for pleasure or companionship." Louderbeck’s "physical virtual pet" perfectly fits the criterion save the fact that it is not a real animal. Aibo is a tame "robotic companion" kept for pleasure (Louderbeck, 2000). And a "robot" is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a machine designed to function in place of a living agent." Aibo most certainly takes the place of a living agent, namely domestic animals. Thus it follows that it is a machine designed to function as a domestic or tamed animal, which is kept for pleasure or companionship. A crude interpretation of this definition of Aibo might suggest that it is merely a child’s toy that resembles a real dog. But there is more to this "robotic companion" than meets the eye. This "physical virtual pet," by its very definition, has amalgamated the concepts of pets and robots. Since Aibo is a machine specifically designed to function as a lifelike domestic animal, it revolutionizes the way humans look at animal "companions."
A plausible bond between man and his "robotic companion" can be derived from the millennia old relationship between man and his pet. About twenty thousand years ago, human ancestors noticed that some species of animals, especially wild dogs, would help them in catching prey in exchange for a small portion of the catch. Furthermore these creatures would linger around the human settlements or accompany humans when they moved on to newer places, in order to maintain the "’symbiotic relationship’" (Leach, 72). This "symbiotic relationship" on the hunting ground, mutually beneficial to both man and dog, became stronger with time when the dog entered the human household and became man’s "companion". Taking Louderbeck’s description of Aibo as a "robotic companion," it seems uncertain whether this "symbiotic relationship" will apply to man and his Aibo. Furthermore by mentioning that men will have "control over their Aibo," he establishes the fact clearly that a "symbiotic relationship" cannot exist between man and his "robotic companion" (Louderbeck, 2000).
The new relationship that may develop as a result of man’s "control over" his "robotic companion," can be best explained by Ingold’s theory of "trust to domination" (13). Ingold suggests that over the period of a few centuries, the link that held together the "symbiotic relationship" between men and animals migrated from "trust to domination." Although in the beginning, the human hunters and their animal counterparts were on the same hierarchical level on the hunting grounds, with time, humans gained the upper hand, as animals began to seek refuge within the human habitats. It is only due to this graduation from "trust to domination" that today billions of humans keep billions of animals as pets in their houses; the humans have the "control." And thus it can be aptly said that the relationship between man and Aibo will be based on Louderbeck’s "control" and Ingold’s "domination."
Aibo is a robot first and then a pet. Ironically, although the animals have been a part of the human lives for thousands of years, the word "robot" itself was coined not more than a century ago. In 1920, Karel Capek introduced the modern concept of robots in his play "Rossum’s Universal Robots"; the word ‘robot’ being derived from the Czech word ‘robota’ meaning strenuous work (Segel, 297). The play began with the rendition of the relationship between humans and the robots, akin to the "symbiotic relationship" between the early man and his pets, based on "trust." Undoubtedly, Ingold’s "domination" gradually came into play in this relationship also, but surprisingly not with the humans gaining the upper hand, but with the robots becoming "superior to men" (Segel, 307). To this day, this has been one of the main ill conceptions about robots, that someday in the future machines will become "superior to men" in every field.
Enter Aibo- a cute little mutt that can walk at most twenty feet per minute and bark in Homer Simpson’s voice (Louderbeck, 1999). This robot of today is light years away from Capek’s "dominating" robots. Possessing almost none of the qualities that made Segel remark that Capek’s robots were "superior to men," Aibo breaks the long feared tradition of "dominating" robots, which seek to take over the planet. Louderbeck, time and again, talks about the devices and softwares by which humans can "control" Aibo, thus showing that man exercises "domination" over Aibo and not vice versa. Yet Aibo does exhibit some traits of "superiority," not with respect to humans, but with regards to animals. It can be said to be "superior" to an animal, for it possesses many properties that most pets do not, like it can hear and understand up to fifty voice commands (Louderbeck, 2000). Moreover it learns from the environment and then develops to mentally mature companion, something that very few animals do. And the CCD camera on its head, which lets it send pictures from where it wanders, put it on a pedestal high about the best watchdogs in the world (Louderbeck, 1999). What all this technical information boils down to, is that even though a machine may not have all the characteristics of a real being, efficient implementation of technology can make it much more desirable and consequently, "superior" to the living beings1.
In his article "The End of Work", Rifkin shows the consequences when machines become "superior to men", principally concentrating on the people who were "replaced by the new thinking machines." Rifkin’s indirect agreement with Segel’s idea of machines being "superior to men" is chiefly because of the economical advantages in the form of cost efficiency, quality control, and speed of delivery that his "new thinking machines" furnish. Rifkin’s "new thinking machines" are the modern version of Capek’s robots, that is the computers and automated machinery, which is fast replacing human beings in the workplace. Although Capek’s robots were "superior to men" because of these very properties of cost-savings and quality maintenance, the "new thinking machines" are more of a threat to humans, because they are no longer a fantasy; they are here. They have indirectly proved that they are "superior to men" by replacing hundreds of millions of human laborers worldwide in the past few decades, exercising Ingold’s "domination" factor on the modern man.
Is Aibo the "new thinking machine?" According to Louderbeck, Sony certainly claims so. The main feature which turns this "robotic companion" into the "new thinking machine" is its ability to "autonomously act" (Louderbeck, 1999.) The idea of robots doing their own thinking has captured the minds of audiences worldwide ever since Capek’s "Rossum’s Universal Robots" was first published, and even today man is equally fascinated by machines that act on their own. Moreover, just like Rifkin’s "new thinking machines," Aibo is also replacing living beings, namely domestic animals, thereby proving its "superiority" implicitly.
Corresponding to Ingold's theory of "trust to domination," Tuan’s discussion of the "dominant" human "owners" of pets who often get rid of the domestic animals if they prove inconvenient, depicts yet another way, by which humans assert their "superiority" over their pets (88). By proposing that the "dominant" force is the "owner" of the subordinate, Ingold's "dominance" relationship can now be directly applied to Aibo. Ownership of Aibo can thus be analyzed as if it were the "dominance" of humans over robots, in stark contrast to Segel’s frame of robots being "superior to men." Before applying this concept of "ownership" to Aibo, it is incumbent to ascertain the difference between the "ownership" of a robot and "ownership" of a living creature.
The "ownership" of an animal is discussed in Fried's article "The Dog and the Law." Dogs are the "property" of humans and thus the "owner" has "control over" the pet’s life; Ingold’s "domination" factor is in absolute effect. A typical robot would most likely change this relationship between the "owner" and his "property" for the robot does not have life and consequently there is no "trust," or "symbiotic relationship" between the "owner" and his "property." Despite being the "property" of the "owner," the "owner" has now lost his "control over" it. Hence, at a glance, it seems that there can never be any relationship between the humans and the robots.
However, Aibo is not the typical robot. This "new thinking machine" has been made to mimic a real dog as much as possible. Sony has literally built "instincts and emotions" into the "new thinking machine" (Louderbeck, 1999). And since Aibo was made to exhibit feelings like a real dog, it shows anger when a real dog would, and acts happy when a real dog should; of course by merely blinking a few colored lights on its forehead (Louderbeck, 1999). So what exactly does Aibo change? It definitely does not change the external behavior of its "owner" towards real pets, for it demands the same exact treatment. It changes however, the way the "owners" think about living and non-living matter. The fact that Aibo is the first machine in the entire history of human civilization to have made humans disregard the distinction between living and non-living matter while they go about their daily lives, makes it a significant invention2. Its "owners" talk to it day after day, fully knowing that it is not real, yet never showing any signs that it is.
By eradicating the distinction between the living and the non-living, at least in the human eye, Aibo manages to obliterate Rifkin’s "victims of technology revolution." Shocking as it may seem at first, when Rifkin’s "victims" are seen through the new medium that Aibo has brought about, that of non-distinction between living and non-living, it becomes evident that there are no victims at all. Rifkin’s "victims of technology revolution" are the human beings who have been replaced by the "new thinking machines", and they remain "victims" as long as the humans think that there is a difference between both. But besides the conceptual changes that Aibo demands, the practical implications that it heralds, are quite numerous and equally bearing.
One of the primary subjects, who will be most affected by Aibo, are children - infants, toddlers, and teenagers alike. So how does Aibo, being different from a real pet, affect a child in various environments? Eckstein in his article "The pet relationship impact inventory" states that pets are often "transitional objects" for children. "Transitional objects" are items towards which children develop strong attachments and which help them bridge the gap between themselves and the outside world, such as blankets and cuddly toys. Children need their "transitional objects" and who in turn develop "symbiotic relationship" with their "owners." Since in case of children, forces of "domination" and "control" do not come into play, the "symbiotic relationship" is based solely on "trust", a hark back into the pre-stone ages. Can Aibo be considered a "transitional object?" If it satisfies the requirements of a "transitional object", that is the children develop strong attachments for it and it helps them bridge the gap between themselves and the outside world, then surely it can be said to be a "transitional object." Louderbeck describers Aibo as an "amazingly lifelike robotic dog" who will become its owner’s "buddy" (2000). In addition, as its child owner grows and matures, Aibo also develops from being a "puppy to an adult dog over time" (Louderbeck, 1999). This development cycle, by coinciding with a child’s growth period, can very much help a child develop strong bonds with its "robotic companion," and help it get accustomed to the outside world. Accordingly, Aibo can be said to be a "transitional object". But then what exactly does it change?
One of the key changes that this "transitional object" would bring about, is the eradication of "threat," which according to Tuan was the reason why the early man feared the unknown beasts. In practical terms, Aibo is the safest pet a child can have and since there is no way in which Aibo will ever harm a child, there is no "threat". In fact in its current version, "it’s still fragile for young children" to carefully handle it, implying that the flow of "threat" is from the child to Aibo and vice versa, and Louderbeck is "eagerly anticipating" that future descendants of Aibo be child-resistant (2000). Most parents shirk from giving pets as gifts to their children because of this "threat" of the unknown, for it is not humanly possible to pre-determine whether the pet is absolutely safe for a three year old child or not. But Aibo is guaranteed to be safe for children of every age, because it does not react revengefully, does not possess traits of "domination" or feelings that it is "superior to men", which might result in it attempting to harm its "owner." The other effect that Aibo might have, would be the extent to which the "transitional object" has a positive effect on the child’s social development. Eckstein states that there is a positive relationship between "self-esteem" and pet "ownership." This "ownership" of a pet, at young age does not correspond to Tuan’s "owners" of pets, but rather implies Leach’s frame of "symbiotic relationship" based on Ingold’s "trust". To an infant, a "robotic companion" might be the best friend. Aibo can literally be a child’s "physical virtual pet," whom the child could talk to all day, confide in, and share stories with. As such, this "robotic companion" can help a child develop mentally, and develop skills for social interaction.
Positive and negative effects aside, Aibo certainly has the capability to call for the redefinition of the words "pets" and "robots" and what humans think about both. How deep would the impact be? How much would it affect man’s idea of "pets" and "robots?" And how strong would the bond between man and his Aibo be? Only time can tell. Only time can tell whether man will someday accept a machine into his family, not unlike a living member. Only time can tell when will man stop distinguishing between living and non-living. And only time can tell if Aibo can ever take the place of dog in human society and become man’s new best friend.
Annotated Bibliography
-
For more than twenty thousand years, humans have domesticated animals, and the relationship has generally been that of a master and slave, or a leader and his follower. Power and dominance have always played a part. With the advent of modern science fiction, robots came into the picture and assumed either the role of a lowly dumb worker, or that of a Frankensteinian invention gone out of hand. In fact in this second role, robots are supposed to be machines with superhuman intelligence that often attempt to take over the planet and exterminate the human race forever. In 1999, Sony came out with a robot with dog-like appearance, personality, and behavior, called Aibo. Aibo demands a third classification. It is neither a lowly robot nor a merciless beast. It is a lovable toy that demands attention! A robot which needs care, rather than which takes care of humans and their offspring! What emerges from this issue is the need to redefine our views about pets and robots, and answer many questions as such:
- Eckstein, Daniel. "The pet relationship impact inventory." Family Journal 8 (2000): 192-198.
Eckstein talks about the effects that pets can have on children. Eckstein’s primary frame of "transitional object" shows how come objects can help children bridge the gap between themselves and the world. Is Aibo such an object? Does it affect the way a child develops and interacts? What needs to be shown is Aibo’s effect on the social development of children and how different it is from real pets in this regard. - Fried, Jeremy. "The Dog and The Law." God Had a Dog. Ed. Maria Leach. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961. 332-47.
Fried’s essay takes a look at how humans have treated the dog ever since it was domesticated. More precisely, what does the human justice system say about the well being of man’s best friend. The question whether the dog is a "property" of the "owner" brings to light the dominant role of man in this relationship. The owner of a dog holds immense power over it, much like a future owner of a robot. Logically, one would expect Aibo to end up as man’s servant, yet considering the its robotic features, like intelligence and even artificial feelings, how long before it would itself want freedom? - Hamilton, Linda. "How ‘bout them Bots?" Time Feb. 2001: 56-58.
Popular source used to provide factual information regarding the sales of Aibo and orders placed. - Ingold, Tim. "From Trust to Domination." Animals and Human Society. Ed. Manning, Aubrey, and James Serpell. New York: Routledge, 1994. 1-22.
Ingold concentrates solely on how animals have been treated over the ages and explains the age-old bond between man and his pets. This article reveals an interesting fact, that in the very early stages, the relationship was unlike Tuan’s "owner" and "property" parallel, but rather it was like Ingold’s "symbiotic relationship" based on "trust". With time, there was a shift from "trust to dominance." Can Aibo bring an opposite effect, from "dominance to trust" or from "dominance" to "companionship"? Domestication has changed the evolutionary development of most of the domestic animals so much so that many of the species cannot survive without humans now. Is Aibo a threat to their very existence? - Leach, Maria. God Had a Dog. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961.
Leach describes the history of the domestication of dogs. Her frame of "symbiotic relationship" between man and his dog lays the foundation for any discussion on the man-animal bond. Using her frame, it can be questioned, whether this "symbiotic relationship" still exists between humans and animals and if it will exist between man and Aibo in the future. Moreover, what is the basis on which "symbiotic relationship" is founded? - Louderbeck, Jim. " Sony AIBO Robotic Dog" TechTV. 11 May 1999. 5 Apr. 2001
In this article, Louderbeck describes the features of Aibo 1.0, the first "physical virtual pet." While discussing Aibo’s technical specifications, Louderbeck subtly hints at its cultural significance, by the following ideas, which will be used as the case text and discussed in detail: "amazingly lifelike robotic dog," "instincts and emotions," "autonomously act," and "learn from environment."- Louderbeck, Jim. "Aibo 2.0." TechTV. 29 Nov. 2000. 5 Apr. 2001
The latest version of Aibo is discussed herein, which primary focus on Aibo’s ability to understand human speech. Louderbeck calls it a "robotic companion," thereby laying the field for debating whether Aibo can affect how humans think of pets and robots or not. With his idea of humans having "control over their Aibos," the author raises a yet another issue: What is this relationship between man and his Aibo based on? Is it "symbiotic" or based on "domination." More aptly, is there any relationship at all between man and Aibo? As he is "eagerly anticipating" future versions of Aibo, it becomes important to analyze what effect will the descendants of Aibo have on the human society and culture.- Segel, Harold. Pinocchio’s Progeny. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995.
In the chapter "From Puppet to Robot", the author reveals how the Capek brothers coined the word "robot". The surprising fact is that this was not more than nine decades ago. It was then that robots were for the first time thought of as lowly workers that did "strenuous work" in a "society of mechanization." Moreover, the theory of "robot rebellion" was a product of the same era. Aibo seems so much different from what they thought a robot would and could be. However, Aibo is but the first of its kind. Given the technological advancement in the next few decades, this century old fear may in fact come true.- Tuan, Yi-Fu. Dominance and Affection, The Making of Pets. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
The author reveals that the relationship between humans and animals was opposite of what it is now. It began with the animals having the upper hand; animals being the "threat". This is in contrast to Ingold’s "trust to dominance" argument, yet considering the fact that so many animals are worshipped by so many cultures worldwide, it is quite evident that "threat" was an integral part of man-animal bond. Aibo seems a terrible misfit in this scene, for it neither creates terror, nor attempts to "dominate" its "owners."
Aibo clearly does not belong to any of the definitions of pets and robots that the aforementioned writers have come up with. Hence the need for a new definition of pets and robots. This article shall attempt to provide the same, as well as try to answer the questions surrounding the matter. - Louderbeck, Jim. "Aibo 2.0." TechTV. 29 Nov. 2000. 5 Apr. 2001
Is this the future of house pets? Can a machine replace a living being? What next? Within a few decades, Ai-Child and Ai-Wife might be a possibility. Is Aibo the first step towards eventual moral degradation? What are the implications of welcoming a robot into the household? Will it make easy for humans to accept Ai-Wife into their daily lives someday, without so much as a second thought?
There is an urgent need to answer these questions, for Aibo is definitely going to be every child’s first toy within this decade. Along with Aibo, more and more robots are coming out in the market, which mimic living beings, e.g. Honda’s Asimo, which is a four foot human-like robot that can walk, dance, and even climb stairs. Hundreds of science fiction writers have talked about the moral issues with regards to robots, but what is different now, is that the robots like Aibo are affecting the animal world also. Will the bond between man and his dog, still exist when Aibo replaces the dog? Rather, should the bond still exist? Throughout this text, using Aibo as the case, primary focus shall be placed on the future of the relationship between humans and their pets, and what tomorrow’s man will think of the robot as opposed to what he thinks today.
The primary source of information will be books that discuss the relationship between humans and animals and what the common man thinks a robot is. The case text compromises of two articles written by Jim Louderbeck for TechTv Online in 1999 and 2000. To helps understand the moral complexities of the day when robots will be smarter than humans and will have feelings, Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, a popular source, was used for background information. "From Trust to Domination" by Tim Ingold, and Dominance and Affection by Yi-Fu Tuan discuss the human-animal bond, while Pinocchio’s Progeny by Harold Segel explains the birth of the robot. In his journal article "The pet relationship impact inventory," Eckstein cites the various methods by which pets have positive effects on the development of children. The following sources are the sources that are crucial to this discussion: