In the article “Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley” authors Mathur and Reichling use empirical data to argue that “the Uncanny Valley is a real influence on humans’ perceptions of robots as social partners.” The authors conduct several studies to map the landscape of human-robot interactions, specifically humans’ perceptions of likability and trustworthiness. The main motivation for the study was the observation that robots are being more mainstream, and that people who are interacting with human-like machines are “increasingly unlikely to be technically trained experts and thus more likely to use casual intuitive approaches to the interaction.”
One of the most impactful conclusions from the study was that this research might help designers create more likeable and trustworthy robots, or “might alternatively indicate that the Uncanny Valley is an inherent and insurmountable feature of human category perception.” These dual conclusions are especially interesting to the engineer. The question arises: why are we determined to create human-like robots in the first place? I do not need a human face on my computer screen that tells me update Windows, a pop-up will do. What do we need physical robots for specifically that the design criterion requires it to look precisely human? Let’s consider an everyday situation, like going to the bank to deposit a check. If it was necessary that a robot replace the teller, would you rather interact with a computer that spoke to you (like Siri, for example) or a human-like robot? Personally, I would prefer working with the computer instead of the robot. Over all of these options, I truly would prefer working with a human.
The authors identify that their results point towards the Uncanny Valley being more than a superficial judgement of likeability. Instead, “it has more profound effects on the emotional-cognitive motivations of strategic social behavior, affecting one of the most fundamental social judgements: that of trustworthiness.” One of the most important aspects of modern technology is trustworthiness. Do you trust that your lights will turn on when you flip the switch? Do you trust that the food you buy is safe? Do you trust that your phone will connect you to the right person when you dial their number? The reason why people use it is because it works. Therefore, why are we attempting to create human-like robots if humans fundamentally and innately may not trust them?
I find this discussion of the trustworthiness of robots to be so interesting, and I agree that we should question why we are determined to personify computers in the first place. There are a lot of digitized processes where we communicate with technology and still trust it, like when we refill a prescription or make an appointment or reservation. The purpose of this interaction is simply to accomplish something, and we don’t expect the interaction to be personable or engaging because we have vastly different expectations when interacting with other humans versus robots. This inherent reluctance to treating robots like humans should be telling of the fact that maybe it’s a little weird or wrong. It almost implies that we can substitute human interaction with robot interaction.
I agree, that I would find more comfort in working with a computer that may even have voice features giving me directions, but adding a face to it would not comfort me or improve my perception of the interaction, even if it was human-like. Robot-human interactions may increase as more laypeople come in contact with such AI assistant features when “navigating their social world,” as the article is titled. I also wonder why people try to put a face to an AI voice? I am just as content to use Siri or Alexa without having to see a face associated with it.