|
Appearances | Ask Dr. Joanne | Bio | Consulting |Patients | Publications | Contact |
|
"Of course, children will love the electronic pets, and
will play with them in various ways. We can imagine children setting mazes
and obstacle courses, ambushing them, and trying to confuse them. We may
have a need for robotic psychiatrists (Joanne Pransky was the world's first)
when the experience has proved too much." |
Publications > The Future of Pets By Ian Pearson In the UK we are very fond of our pets. Some seem to prefer them even to people. In return for shelter and food, they are good company and have health benefits, such as reducing our blood pressure and stress levels. But soon, we may have another form of pet in our homes, an electronic variety. Tamagotchis have come and gone, but soon we will have mobile robotic pets with much more sophisticated 'personalities.' People have no problem dealing with their pets but often are technophobic when it comes to machines. But it is now possible to build a general purpose interface which should enable the worst technophobe to harness the potential of information technology. Speech recognition and synthesis and radio technology mean that most electronic equipment could be completely hidden from sight under the stairs or in the attic. People could just talk to it from around the house. Ideally, the interface should be visual too, so the computer should be able to see you and you should be able to see what it is showing you, perhaps on your TV screen. The electronics needed would be physically small. Video cameras and microphones could be hidden in the walls of the living room in due course just like on Star Trek. However, many people would prefer something more visible. A cute robotic pet would suffice, a cute kitten or teddy bear, Barbie Doll, or a more traditional robot. It could have miniature video cameras in place of eyes and microphones in place of ears. Its voice output could either use the TV or speakers in the device itself. A radio link could easily be concealed in the tail or body. The body would also contain the minimal electronics required to drive the interface as well as those required to drive the robotics. In this way, the kitten (or whatever) could behave like a pet most of the time, while acting as the human interface top the information superhighway and all the facilities that that enables. The TV may have a channel reserved for the computer, or perhaps we could adapt on-screen messaging. Its would use rechargeable batteries, and in the case of the kitten, it might just wander back to its basket or rug for a recharge via an inductive loop. These robotic pets would appear very useful. Although the pet itself would just be the front end of a more sophisticated computer linked to the network, people would probably associate the functionality psychologically with the pet. They could ask it to order their shopping, find a nature documentary on the digital TV, or organise their next holiday. Unlike the real cat, it wouldn't bring in dead mice or scratch the furniture, but might happily play with a ball of string when it is off duty. Other sorts of robotic pets might be very different. Philips have designed a small plastic spherical pet with wheels for instance. We may have several that wander round in a flock, following us round the house and responding in simple ways to what we do. Manufacturers will doubtless have fun designing their personalities and care requirements. Apart from conventional digital computing, they will also be able to make good use of noisy neural network based learning systems, hopefully giving a more organic feel. Some progress is already being made here. We can expect our cyberpets to behave in unpredictable ways, and to respond to us, maybe even to how we are feeling. Computers can infer much of our emotional state from our facial expressions already. Cyberpets may be truly good companions just as real pets are. Eventually, and no-one really knows when, the sophistication of the electronics in our cyberpets could match or exceed the 'mental' capabilities of our organic pets in every way. They may appear truly conscious, and we can expect that this would make them even more fun. But at that point, we will have to start asking new questions, about their rights. If they evolve to the point where they are capable of suffering in any way, then we will have a duty to protect them. Of course, children will love the electronic pets, and will play with them in various ways. We can imagine children setting mazes and obstacle courses, ambushing them, and trying to confuse them. We may have a need for robotic psychiatrists (Joanne Pransky was the world's first) when the experience has proved too much. But what of our real pets? Animals will not necessarily relate easily to the electronic variety. If they are just a tin can on wheels, there is probably no problem, but when they look and behave in similar ways to animals, real pets may be somewhat more confused. Certainly, the robotic cat may be attacked just as willingly by next door's Rottweiler, but is unlikely to have the same physical dexterity that a real cat would use to escape. We will have to wait and see. Robot vets would seem another obvious need. But already we are putting chips into our dogs to identify them. Perhaps later, we could put locator chips in them too so that we can find them if they get lost, using satellite tracking. More frivolously, and I hope we never do it, we could go further and link these chips to the dog's nervous system to guide it home, or by using satellite positioning and navigation, we could just program the dog and send it out for a walk on its own. Technology can be fun, but it is possible to take it too far. |
© 2001-2008 Dr. Joanne Pransky. All rights reserved. | Service Robot Links | Humanoid Links | Home |
