Job-Stealing Robots

Welcome back. Although the blog was down during my futile attempt to catch up on other matters, I continued to review published research and did flag several studies. One of the earliest examined our perception of robots replacing humans in the workplace. 

Industrial robots on the assembly line (from www.therobotreport.com/top-5-countries-using-industrial-robots-2018/).

Robots have been playing greater roles in the workplace, yet studies have been mixed. Some find robots have a negative effect on employment, others find robots have a positive effect.

A Brigham Young University researcher sides with a positive association that he attributes to employees who possess the skills and expertise to collaborate with robots. He cites, for example, employees working alongside robots that restock workstations or retrieve parts on assembly lines and employees who develop, program, use, maintain or work with robots to perform technologically advanced tasks.

Gauging The Perception
In an effort to better understand the perception of job loss to robots, the researcher commissioned a U.S. national survey of nearly 2,000 individuals by Qualtrics in September 2021. His survey asked respondents (1) to estimate the percentage of employees whose jobs were replaced with robots and (2) if their own jobs had ever been replaced with robots.

Nearly 14% of survey respondents reported that their jobs had indeed been replaced with robots. Those respondents estimated that 47% of workers in the U.S. had lost jobs to robots. In contrast, survey respondents who had not lost jobs to robots estimated that only 29% of employees had their jobs replaced with robots.

Respondents’ perceptions of the percentage of workers who lost jobs to robots. Note sizable difference between respondents’ perceptions based on whether their own jobs were or were not replaced by robots (46.9% compared to 29.0%). All respondents’ perceptions overestimated those in the sample who jobs were actually replaced by robots (blue dashed line at 13.7 percent). (from journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221131377).

Notably, the respondents’ perceptions of others losing jobs to robots did not match the experiences of the 14% in the survey sample. Respondents that did not lose their jobs to robots had a twofold increase between their perception of jobs lost compared with the results for the entire sample (29% compared with 14%). Those that did report losing their jobs had more than a threefold increase between their perception and the results for the sample (47% compared with 14%).

As you might expect, a comparison of perceptions by whether respondents lost jobs to robots suggests that one’s own job experience serves to bias perception toward others having had the same experience.

Wrap Up
The survey results are consistent with previous studies, which suggest that workplaces are integrating robots with employees in ways that generate more value for human labor. Robots are not displacing workers; at least not at the rate we might think from attention-grabbing headlines that predict a dire future of employment. The only sure prediction is that workplaces will continue to evolve.

The researcher writes that we make the mistake of expecting novel technologies to be adopted without considering all relevant contextual impediments--cultural, economic and government arrangements that support the manufacturing, sale and use of the technology. Just because a technology can be used for something does not ensure that it will be, or how quickly.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Study of perception of robots replacing workers in Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World journal: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231221131377
Article on study on EurekAlert! website: www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/970815

Trash-Talking Robot

Trash Talk: Disparaging, taunting or boastful comments especially between opponents trying to intimidate each other (Merriam-Webster). OK, but what if your trash-talking opponent is a robot?

Welcome back. Looking ahead to our future with robots, researchers with Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of the effect of linguistic nuances and social behavior on human-robot interactions.

Rather than add to the large body of work on cooperative interactions (e.g., robots assisting humans), they examined the case of robots and humans having different or even conflicting objectives. This would occur, for example, if a sales robot is programmed to convince a human customer to buy a specific item, but the customer thinks other items would be better.

The question addressed by the study was how would an opponent’s comments about one’s game playing ability impact a human if the opponent were a robot?

Pepper, the humanoid robot that voiced encouraging and discouraging comments during a strategic game with humans (www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper).

Let the Games Begin
The researchers enlisted 40 participants to compete against a humanoid robot in a strategic game (Stackelberg Security Game). The participants were not initially advised of the true purpose of the study. Each participant played two practice rounds of the game without the robot, then 35 rounds with the robot.

During the 35 rounds, the robot played with optimal strategy and offered expressive verbal commentary either encouraging or discouraging its human opponent. Whether encouraging or discouraging, the comments had nothing to do with the participant’s actual performance.

A selected group of the participants also played another 35 rounds, during which the robot’s comments were opposite to its comments during the first 35 games with those participants; encouraging comments became discouraging and vice versa. 

Examples of the robot’s encouraging and discouraging
comments when playing a strategic game with human
opponents (from arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11459.pdf).

The researchers collected a variety of data on the participants’ game strategy and their perceptions of the task, their performance and the robot. These included a pre-task questionnaire of demographic information, familiarity with robots and technology, and emotional state; records of actions taken during the game; a post-task questionnaire; a post-game verbal semi-structured interview (video recorded); and, for some participants, video of the participant playing the game against the robot.

Did the Robot’s Comments Matter?
The study found that, overall, the robot’s comments strongly influenced the participants’ feelings in the two-opponent, competitive interaction. This occurred regardless of the participants’ level of technical sophistication.

Discouraging comments caused the humans to play the game less rationally and perceive the robot more negatively--as being less optimistic, cheerful, cooperative and cute. In contrast, encouraging comments caused the humans to play the game more rationally and perceive the robot in a more positive manner.

In all, 30% of the participants labeled the robot’s goal as “distraction,” but they excused the robot, blaming its behavior on how it was programmed.

Wrap Up
The researchers suggest their findings may be useful for robot designers. The robot’s ability to prompt responses could have implications for automated learning, mental health treatment and even the use of robots as companions.

Game developers can also use the results to develop more interactive opponents and increase the sense of engagement.

Placing importance on the humanoid aspect of the robot in their study, the researchers posit that nonverbal modes of expression in competitive settings should be investigated in future work.

Won’t it be swell when robots as well as people start giving us a hard time? Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Study of effect of robot’s comments on human game opponents in Proc. of 28th IEEE Int’l. Conf. on Robot Human Interactive Communication: arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11459.pdf
Article on study on EurekAlert! website: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-11/cmu-tth111819.php

Innovative Robotic Actuators

Welcome back. As some might say about art, I don’t know much about robotic actuators, but I know what I like. And I really like how Cornell University researchers are using popcorn--popcorn!--to power robotic devices.

Actuators
Actuators are key components of machines, not only robotic systems. When an actuator receives a control signal, it converts the signal’s energy into mechanical motion, generally linear or rotary.

Actuators may be based on hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, thermal or mechanical means, and they’re increasingly being driven by software. Now add popcorn to the list.

Warren’s demonstration of popcorn’s change in volume after popping: Same number of kernels, and some didn’t pop.

Why popcorn? Heating popcorn kernels to vaporize the moisture produces a rapid force, motion, change in shape and rigidity, and increase in volume. These responses can be used to advantage even if they occur only once. That popcorn is readily available, cheap, light weight, biodegradable and, of course, edible are added benefits.

Popcorn Properties
The researchers first measured key properties of three types of popcorn subjected to four types of heating (submersion in hot oil, hot air, microwave and direct contact with heated nichrome 60 wire, which is widely used in heating elements).

They found kernels pop with a relatively high force (nearly 40 millinewtons or about 0.01 pound-force). The popped kernels expand some 10 times in volume, change viscosity by nearly an order of magnitude, exhibit inter-kernel jamming and become more biodegradable. Popping can be induced effectively by the four heating methods tested, and each has trade-offs.

Popcorn-Driven Actuators
They then examined how popcorn’s unique qualities can power robotic devices that grip, expand or change rigidity by constructing and demonstrating different types of popcorn-driven actuators.

Jamming actuator--they used heated nichrome wire to pop kernels in a flexible silicone rod, causing the rod to stiffen and lift a 100 gram (3.5 ounce) weight.

Popcorn-driven jamming actuator. A silicon tube contains three lower modulus silicone tubes of kernels and nichrome wire. When current is applied to the wire, the kernels pop, jam against one another and create a relatively rigid rod (from stevenceron.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/4/9/96490288/popcorn-driven-robotic.pdf).

Elastomer actuator-- they used heated nichrome wire to pop kernels in three silicon fingers of a soft gripper, causing the fingers to curl and grip a ball.

Popcorn-driven elastomer actuator. Three silicon tubes of kernels and nichrome wire, with an attached strain-limiting layer to create bending, respond when current is applied and kernels pop (from stevenceron.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/4/9/96490288/popcorn-driven-robotic.pdf).

Origami actuator (shape-programmable)--they folded recycled popcorn bags into bellows, filled them with kernels and microwaved them. The popped kernels’ expansion was strong enough to support a 9-pound (4 kg) kettlebell.

Popcorn-driven origami actuator. Paper-folded bellows filled with kernels are mechanically programmed to expand into a circle when the kernels are heated by a microwave oven and pop (from stevenceron.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/4/9/96490288/popcorn-driven-robotic.pdf).

They also demonstrated the use of popcorn to actuate a three-fingered rigid link gripper. Hot-air popped kernels packaged between two wooden plates separated the plates causing tendons to contract and close the fingers.

Wrap Up
This first study of using popcorn to drive an actuator was part of a larger plan to produce simple robots that might be deployed in large numbers to perform useful tasks.

Having successfully demonstrated that popcorn can power robotic devices to perform basic functions, the researchers’ next step is to design the infrastructure for standalone popcorn-driven robots. That will require an embedded system capable of heating the kernels and a pump capable of moving the kernels.

Overall, the researchers hope the findings of this initial effort will help pave the way for a wide range of applications of rigid, compliant and soft robots.

Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.
Study presented at 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Brisbane, Australia: stevenceron.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/4/9/96490288/popcorn-driven-robotic.pdf
Article on study on IEEE Spectrum website: spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-hardware/popcorndriven-robotic-actuators
Article on study on Cornell Chronicle website: news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/07/kernel-promise-popcorn-powered-robots
Background on actuators:
www.techopedia.com/definition/17043/actuator
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuator

A version of this blog post appeared earlier on www.warrensnotice.com.

Bug Grooming

Welcome back. Yes, I’m writing about bugs again, as if giant African millipedes weren’t enough. If you read my post on Cyborg Insects from last September, you’ll know I’ve got this thing about cockroaches. I want to annihilate them. There’s new research that might help. (Can you see me grinning diabolically?) 

American cockroach enjoying a cracker.
 (from www.pestid.msu.edu)

If you did see the Cyborg Insects post, you’ll likely recall the photos of the cute stuffed animal that I used to spare you from viewing photos of actual cockroaches. Today, I’ve got to go with the real thing. That’s a cockroach over there in the photo; the thing on the cracker.

Why the Reality Show? So you’ll see the bug’s antennae. Cockroaches go nuts keeping their antennae clean. Well, they don’t actually go nuts, they just spend lots of time grooming them. The new research found that the poor things don’t function well if their antennae aren’t spotless.

The Bug Study

The study was conducted by researchers at North Carolina State University with a collaborator from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Observing the incessant cleaning, the researchers sought to determine what the cockroaches were removing from their antennae, its source and its affect on the antennae and the bug.

Working first with American cockroaches (Periplaneta americana), which are a tad bigger than other cockroaches, the researchers compared antennae that they prevented from being cleaned with antennae that they allowed to be cleaned normally.

They found that unclean antennae collected significantly more environmental contaminants from surface and air as well as 3 to 4 times more fatty, wax-like material that roaches produce themselves to reduce water loss.

The researchers also found that the grooming process cleaned microscopic pores on the antennae that allow sensory chemicals to reach the bugs’ olfactory nerves. When the pores of the unclean antennae were plugged (sort of like a stuffed up nose), the cockroaches did not do as well at smelling (i.e., detecting) chemical signals that would be important to them. This was demonstrated by exposing cockroaches to chemicals associated with mating and other, I’ll guess less stimulating odors.

That would have been enough for me, but the investigators then subjected German cockroaches, carpenter ants and houseflies to many of the same tests. The results were similar even though cockroaches lick their antennae clean, while flies and ants appear to rub away the dirt with their legs.

Wrap Up

Allow me to jump to pest control implications. We’re probably not going to be able to convince the bugs to stay unkempt and thus less aware of their environment (i.e., not smell it coming). The researchers do suggest, however, that perhaps we could use the findings to improve the method of insecticide delivery.

For example, a mist or dust that lands directly on the antennae will be lapped up quickly by cockroaches and be much more effective than any residual insecticide. Since some of the more finicky cockroaches are demanding that a sweetener other than glucose be offered in roach motels, I think we’d better get on this immediately. Thanks for stopping by.

P.S.

- Paper in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1212466110.full.pdf
- News release from North Carolina State University: http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/mkschalgroom/
- LiveScience article on the study:
http://www.livescience.com/26829-cockroaches-grooming-behavior-explained.html
- Science Magazine report on cockroach aversion to glucose:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/613deadline Monday, 1 July5/972

P.P.S.

You are running out of time to enter the blog contests:
-Writing: Describe your Personal Best, deadline Monday, 1 July,
link: Personal Best Writing Contest
-Photography: Depict “Personal Best,” deadline Sunday, 30 June,
link: Personal Best Photo Contest

Robotic Legs Photo Addendum

Last Friday’s blog post reviewed research on Cyborg Insects. To illustrate the relative simplicity of developing cyborgs, as opposed to robots, I offer this glimpse of robotic legs--just legs, our son’s senior project in Mechanical Engineering.

A team of five students, guided by a faculty member and grad assistant, devoted a year (ok, only 6 credit hours) to producing these legs, which did in fact walk (more or less). No one tallied the lines of computer code that were written.

Example information from a lengthy
PowerPoint presentation.

Views of robotic legs.

Robotic legs ready to go.

Cyborg Insects

Welcome back. Remember how excited you were reading my blog post on insect behavior and the illustrated verse on the praying mantis? Would you like to re-live that high? OK! I saw a report about another insect. I’ll start at the beginning.

When I was working at the Arecibo Observatory in the mid-1960s, one of the scientists and I considered living offsite. He heard about a vacant place, got hold of the key and we went to check it out. As we opened the front door and the air and sunlight rushed in, approximately 25,000 cockroaches scattered.

Make-believe giant cockroach
sitting on footstool. (My wife
won’t read this post if she
sees a photo of a cockroach.)

I bring this up, not to justify our bypassing that lively residence, but to highlight my long-term interest in controlling cockroaches. 
The ultimate control is now possible. Researchers at North Carolina State University have converted live cockroaches into remotely controlled cyborgs!
 
Remotely Controlled Cockroaches

Working with Madagascar hissing cockroaches, which grow to be 2 or 3 inches, much larger than a run of mill cockroach species, the researchers rigged up the bugs like toy cars with loaded roof racks. They attached a lightweight chip with a wireless transmitter and receiver, and wired a microcontroller to the bugs’ antennae and cerci.

Antennae I knew, but I had to dig deeper to learn about cerci. Those are the two little appendages that stick out near the rear ends. I’ve seen them on earwigs, but I never noticed them on cockroaches. Anyway, here’s where it gets cool.

Make-believe giant cockroach
hiding under footstool.

Hairs on the cerci are sensitive to air movement. The hairs are connected to nerve cells. The nerve cells analyze the air sensed by the cerci hair and signal the cockroach to run in the direction of the air flow. Opening the door to the vacant house or lifting your shoe to…you know...is all it takes to get the air and cockroach moving.
 
Instead of blowing on the cerci hairs, the researchers use electrical signals to the cerci to start the bugs running. Then they use electrical charges to the antennae to control the direction the bugs run. The experiments successfully demonstrated that the scampering cyborg cockroaches could be controlled remotely to follow a curved line on the floor. (Check out the video in the linked review.)

Powering Cyborg Cockroaches

The North Carolina State researchers are hoping to use cyborg cockroaches in emergency response; for example, finding earthquake survivors. Related research is addressing the power source to run the bug’s roof rack and sensors. You’ll love this.

Remember the absolutely fascinating work on impaling snails to generate electrical power? Of course you do. Well, Case Western Reserve University researchers are doing that with cockroaches.

The research team is developing a biofuel cell, powered by a sugar the cockroach produces from its food. In testing thus far, they implanted the tiny device--two electrodes with special enzymes--into the abdomens of five cockroaches. They measured the power the device produced and removed it without any apparent harm to the cockroaches. (Oh, thank goodness they weren’t harmed!)

Make-believe giant cockroach
hiding behind footstool.

Wrap Up
 
Who needs to build bug-like robots if we can take real bugs and make them cyborgs? Research on the cyborg bugs seems to be quite extensive. I may open the topic again in the future. For now, thanks for stopping by.

P.S. 

Link to review of North Carolina State University research:
http://www.livescience.com/23016-remote-controlled-cyborg-roaches.html
Link to review of Case Western Reserve University research: http://www.livescience.com/17956-insect-cyborg-biofuel-cell.html
Abstract of Case Western Research University paper in Journal of the American Chemical Society:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja210794c?prevSearch=%255BContrib%253A%2BDaniel%2BScherson%255D&searchHistoryKey=