Content uploaded by David Allen Larson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Allen Larson
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1461712
105
Artificial Intelligence: Robots, Avatars, and the
Demise of the Human Mediator
DAVID ALLEN LARSON
*
As technology has advanced, you may have wondered whether (or
simply when) artificial intelligence devices will replace the humans who
perform complex, interactive, interpersonal tasks such as dispute resolution.
Has science now progressed to the point that artificial intelligence devices
can replace human mediators, arbitrators, dispute resolvers, and problem
solvers? Can humanoid robots, attractive avatars, and other relational agents
create the requisite level of trust and elicit the truthful, perhaps intimate or
painful, disclosures often necessary to resolve a dispute or solve a problem?
This article will explore these questions. Regardless of whether the reader is
convinced that the demise of the human mediator or arbitrator is imminent,
one cannot deny that artificial intelligence now has the capability to assume
many of the responsibilities currently being performed by alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) practitioners.
Artificial intelligence can be imbedded in a variety of physical forms.
This article will focus primarily on robots designed to resemble humans and
avatars. Robots can, of course, assume whatever form the designer desires,
including human, animal, abstract, or strictly functional (as might be seen in
an industrial enterprise). Artificial intelligence, however, does not need to be
defined by a physical form. Much of what will be discussed in this article
will be relevant to, and include, devices that do not have presence in the
physical world.
1
Avatars, for example, initially were regarded as a “graphic
*
Professor of Law, Senior Fellow and former Director, Dispute Resolution Institute,
Hamline University School of Law. Professor Larson was a member of the American Bar
Association’s E-commerce and ADR Task Force, was one of the founders of the
International Competition for Online Dispute Resolution, created the ADR and
Technology course for Hamline University, and was a U.S. West Technology Fellow. He
was the founder and Editor-In-Chief of the Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution in
Employment, a Hearing Examiner for the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, an
arbitrator for the Omaha Tribe, and currently serves as an independent arbitrator. He is a
Qualified Neutral under Minnesota Supreme Court Rule 114, his other articles discussing
Technology Mediated Dispute Resolution are available at http://ssrn.com/author=709717,
and he can be contacted at dlarson@hamline.edu. He thanks Jennifer Rottmann, third-
year student at the Hamline University School of Law, for her insightful comments and
excellent research assistance.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1461712
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
106
representation of a real person in cyberspace.”
2
Virtual worlds such as
Second Life
3
, There
4
, and Active Worlds
5
are populated by millions of
“residents,” that being, individuals who direct their avatars in an essentially
limitless number of interactions with other residents in a three-dimensional
virtual world. The connection to an actual person once thought necessary is
becoming less relevant, and the term “avatar” now includes non-player
characters in three-dimensional online games and virtual online
salespersons.
6
1
Artificial intelligence useful for dispute resolution problem solving may exist only
as software. Smartsettle, for instance, is an online negotiation system that uses
optimization algorithms to produce results “beyond win-win.” The Smartsettle website
states:
Smartsettle has a unique patent-pending multivariate blind bidding system that
is superior to ordinary double blind bidding. While other blind bidding systems are
restricted to single-issue cases between two parties, Smartsettle's method can be
extended to any number of negotiators in conflict over decisions to be made on any
number of variables.
. . . .
While some other blind bidding systems use a split-the-difference algorithm
that tends to produce a chilling effect, Smartsettle's algorithms actually produce the
opposite effect by rewarding negotiators for moving quickly to the Zone of
Agreement, thus resulting in quicker settlements.
Smartsettle, Smartsettle’s Visual Blind Bidding, http://www.smartsettle.com/resources/
25-articles/31-smartsettles-unique-blind-bidding (last visited Oct. 20, 2009).
2
Compu-Kiss Techionary, http://www.compukiss.com/techionary-glossary/a-
4.html?page=1 (last visited Oct. 2, 2009). Webster’s definition of an avatar includes “an
electronic image that represents and is manipulated by a computer user (as in a computer
game).” M
ERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (2009), available at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/avatar; see also W
AGNER JAMES AU, THE MAKING OF SECOND
LIFE:NOTES FROM THE NEW WORLD 252 (2008) (“From the Sansrkit [sic] for ‘godly
incarnation,’ [avatar is] a common virtual-world term for an onscreen alter ego or
character controlled by the user. Avatar generally refers to the specific physical
characteristics (gender, race, etc.) of a [virtual world] Resident. Many Residents have
several avatars for different events, moods, social situations.”).
3
See generally Second Life, http://secondlife.com/ (last visited October 2, 2009).
4
See generally There, http://www.there.com (last visited October 2, 2009).
5
See generally Active Worlds, http://activeworlds.com/ (last visited October 2,
2009).
6
Charles Rich & Candace L. Sidner, Robots and Avatars as Hosts, Advisors,
Companions, and Jesters, AI M
AGAZINE, Spring 2009, at 29, 30–31 (referring to Anna at
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/ as an example of a “synthetic online salesperson”).
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1461712
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
107
It is fascinating (and perhaps unsettling) to realize the complexity and
seriousness of tasks currently delegated to avatars and robots. This article
will review some of those delegations and suggest how the artificial
intelligence developed to complete those assignments may be relevant to
dispute resolution and problem solving. Relational agents, which can have a
physical presence such as a robot, be embodied in an avatar, or have no
detectable form whatsoever and exist only as software, are able to create long
term socioeconomic relationships with users built on trust, rapport, and
therapeutic goals.
7
Relational agents are interacting with humans in
circumstances that have significant consequences in the physical world.
These interactions provide insights as to how robots and avatars can
participate productively in dispute resolution processes.
Artificial intelligence has two complementary components: the physical
form of the device and the “intellectual” capacity of the software.
8
The
difference between these two components is similar to “the difference
7
See Timothy Bickmore & Laura Pfeiffer, Relational Agents for Antipsychotic
Medication Adherence, in CHI 2008 W
ORKSHOP ON TECHNOLOGY IN MENTAL HEALTH 1,
2 (2008), available at https://www.cs.tcd.ie/TIMH/01-Bickmore.pdf. See generally
Daniel Schulman & Timothy Bickmore, Persuading Users Through Counseling Dialogue
with a Conversational Agent, Notes before the 2009 Proceedings of Persuasive
Technology 1–2, available at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/Persuasive09.pdf (explaining that
“embodied conversational agents,” which are computer-generated characters that appear
and interact as human, can be particularly effective relational agents, but that relational
agents, which are computer-generated artifacts designed to build and maintain long term
social-emotional relationships with humans, need not be embodied social agents). See
also Thomas Holz et al., Where Robots and Virtual Agents Meet: A Survey of Social
Interaction Research Across Milgram’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum, 1 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.
R
OBOTICS 83, 85 (2009), available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/
c1235h2558367676/fulltext.pdf (observing that regarding the difference between robots
and graphic representations such as avatars, one should not focus too closely on
embodiment distinctions but should instead recognize that robots and other entities can
serve identical purposes).
[W]hile in the past software agents and robots have usually been seen as distinct
artefacts of their respective domains, the modern conception is, in fact, to consider
them as particular instances of the same notion of agent—an autonomous entity
capable of reactive and pro-active behaviour [sic] in the environment it inhabits.
Id. Rich and Sidner do not use the phrase “embodied conversational agent,” believing the
term is confusing when robots are discussed because robots, not graphical agents, have
real bodies. Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 30.
8
See Military Use of Robots Increases, SCIENCE DAILY, Aug. 5, 2008,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080804190711.htm.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
108
between [an] adverb and [a] noun.”
9
In other words, a device can either
behave intelligently as a result of automated or human-controlled directions,
or a device literally can be intelligent in the sense that it requires no external
influence to direct its actions.
10
The more readily achievable goal is to create a device that behaves
intelligently. Because we believe that humans are the most intelligent
species, it should not be surprising that a significant amount of artificial
intelligence research concerning this first goal involves devices that resemble
humans—specifically, robots. Robotics scientists and specialists are creating
physical representations of human beings that mimic our movements and
even our appearances.
11
Robots are being developed that replicate human
appearance and movement surprisingly accurately.
But simply creating a realistically behaving robot or avatar may not be
sufficient. Will avatars and robots truly be able to engage humans? Or
instead, will the prospect of interacting with lifeless entities feel so unnatural
that artificial intelligence devices will not be able to encourage the
conversations and disclosures necessary for successful dispute resolution and
problem solving? Studies have concluded that persuasive dialogues with
computer agents can change attitudes.
12
Results based on interactions in
situations other than ADR suggest that avatars and robots acting as relational
agents also are capable of behaviors that will facilitate dispute resolution and
problem solving.
The more difficult, more exciting, and perhaps more troubling goal is the
second one. Can we create devices that actually are intelligent and, if so,
what role can those devices play in dispute resolution and problem solving
processes? Can human mediators and arbitrators be replaced by robots and
avatars that not only physically resemble humans, but also act, think, and
reason like humans?
13
And to raise a particularly interesting question, can
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
See, e.g., Claire Bates, Mini-Me: The Robot that Looks and Sounds Just Like You,
T
HE DAILY MAIL (UK), Feb. 6, 2009, available at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1137747/Mini-Me-The-robot-doll-looks-
sounds-just-like-you.html; Michael Santo, Empathetic Robotic Einstein Shows
“Relativity” with Humans, R
EAL TECH NEWS, Feb. 9, 2009,
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/6450; Einstein Robot Smiles When You Do, C
HINA
ECON.NET, Feb. 7, 2009,
http://en.ce.cn/World/Americas/200902/07/t20090207_18140396.shtml.
12
See Schulman & Bickmore, supra note 7, at 7.
13
See, e.g., Holz et al., supra note 7, at 83. Specifically, Holz states that:
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
109
robots, avatars, and other relational agents look, move, act, think, and reason
even “better” than humans?
I. BUT WHAT DOES “BETTER”MEAN?
“Better” is a seductive term that demands an assessment and comparative
ranking, yet has no apparent objective standards or moral component—
“better” in what sense, according to whose judgment, and based on what
values? When considering potential applications for artificial intelligence
devices, one must keep in mind that devices can be created that could result
in a loss of human control over both specific, discrete human interactions as
well as computer-based programs that support a rapidly increasing share of
society’s workload.
14
Is this beginning to sound like the beginning of a bad
science fiction novel? You wish.
Trends such as inexpensive internet access and the diffusion of wireless computing
devices have made ubiquitous or pervasive computing a practical reality that
augments the normal physical environment and supports the delivery of services to
human users anytime and anywhere. A lot of interfaces for these environments are
built on the idea that a social interface, that is, an interface availing of human-like
social cues and communication modalities, is the most natural and thus most
effective way for humans to interact.
Id.; see also Hideki Kozima et al., Keepon: A Playful Robot for Research, Therapy, and
Entertainment, 1 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 3 (2009), available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v7hqn0q322679qn7/fulltext.pdf; James E. Young et
al., Toward Acceptable Domestic Robots: Applying Insights from Social Psychology, 1
I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 95 (2009), available at http://www.springerlink.com/
content/p8452j71kt410472/fulltext.pdf. On the other hand, some scientists believe that a
robot’s artificial intelligence ultimately will be housed in a remote location:
The ubiquity of cell networks and Wi-Fi networks can mean low-cost consumer
robotic characters that can connect to a bank of servers on the other end of the
wireless network—which can have on them artificial intelligence software. . . .
. . . If you have that processing power on this bank of servers, you can then
have low-cost [robotic] hardware that is using supercomputers on the other end of
the wireless networks to perform [its] mental calculations.
Daniel Terdiman, Head Over Heels for Tomorrow’s Personal Robots, (Jan. 11, 2008),
available at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-183050.html (quoting David Hanson,
founder of Hanson Robotics).
14
See John Markoff, Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man, N.Y. TIMES,
Jul. 26, 2009, at A1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/
science/26robot.html.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
110
In 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
met in Asilomar, California to debate whether artificial intelligence research
should be limited. That location was chosen purposely to evoke the 1975
world-leading biologists’ meeting held at that same location to discuss the
newly discovered ability to reshape life by trading genetic material between
organisms.
15
That meeting led to the discontinuation of certain experiments
and new guidelines for recombinant DNA that allowed experimentation to
continue.
16
At the 2009 conference, scientists looked closely at artificial intelligence
systems that communicate empathy to medical patients. This particular focus
was part of their effort to determine possible dangerous consequences of
artificial intelligence.
17
It is important to note that these are the same types of
systems presented later in this article as prime examples of how far artificial
intelligence devices have advanced and how valuable these devices will be
for ADR.
One of the scientists’ concerns intersects with an implicit theme in this
article. Artificial intelligence devices are proliferating and, like it or not,
increasingly will become a greater part of dispute resolution and problem
solving processes.
18
In our everyday lives we will be forced to live with
artificial intelligence devices that realistically mimic human behaviors.
19
These interactions will raise socioeconomic, legal, and ethical issues, and
humans will have to think about the consequences of interacting, for
instance, with a device that is as intelligent as, and perhaps even more
empathetic than, our spouses.
20
Will artificial intelligence devices become even more intelligent than
human beings? Some scientists believe that this type of “intelligence
explosion” will occur, and that smart machines in turn will develop even
more smart machines until we reach the end of the human era.
21
A
15
Id. at A4.
16
Id.
17
Id. at A1.
18
See, e.g., id.; infra p. 40 and note 94. The author admittedly is someone who likes
the idea but definitely shares concerns about possible loss of control and emphasizes that
artificial intelligence users should not plan on simply flipping the “on” switch and
walking away.
19
Markoff, supra note 14, at A1.
20
See id. at A4; infra p. 106 and notes 249–50.
21
Markoff, supra note 14, at A4. Computer scientist Vernor Vinge predicted this
end to the human era, which he named the “Singularity”. An organization by that same
name has begun offering classes to prepare for this predicted inevitability. Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
111
reassuringly contradictory point of view, however, is that “[u]ntil someone
finds a way for a computer to prevent anyone from pulling its power
plug, . . . it will never be completely out of control.”
22
The predictions and suggestions in this article do not look quite so far
ahead. This article discusses artificial intelligence devices that exist today, or
at least will exist very soon, and suggests how these devices can be
integrated into ADR processes. Some of the worrisome consequences of
using artificial intelligence devices will be addressed, but extensive
discussion about the potentially dangerous consequences of employing
artificial devices that actually are intelligent goes beyond the scope of this
article and must be reserved for another day.
But make no mistake. If one accepts the proposition that parties should
have significant control regarding the nature of their ADR processes, then
parties being encouraged (or forced) to live with artificial intelligence in their
everyday lives will become more comfortable and familiar with these devices
and eventually will expect and demand that these devices be included in
dispute resolution and problem solving processes.
II. WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR ROBOTS AND AVATARS TO INTERACT
EFFECTIVELY WITH HUMANS?
There are many ways to organize a discussion about the contributions
that robots and avatars can make to dispute resolution and problem solving.
This article divides that discussion into the two components described in the
introductory section. It first addresses the question of how intelligently robots
and avatars can behave today in light of scientific advances, and the article
then asks whether, and to what degree, a robot or an avatar can be described
as intelligent.
Although organizing the discussion in this manner certainly is helpful,
more must be done at the outset. This article argues that robots and avatars
can perform, at least for some purposes, as effectively as human mediators.
To make that case it is necessary to identify the capabilities considered
essential for effective human interaction and to then assess the degree to
which robots and avatars possess those characteristics. This subsection
summarizes a mainstream theory as to what capabilities are essential for
22
Janna Quitney Anderson & Lee Rainie, The Future of the Internet II,PEW
INTERNET &AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT 21 (2006), available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Future_of_Internet_2006.p
df (quoting Internet Society board chairman Fred Baker).
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
112
human interaction. The article subsequently provides numerous examples of
robots and avatars interacting with humans and fulfilling delegated duties.
These examples from a variety of contexts demonstrate that contemporary
robots and avatars are fully capable of effective human interaction.
When considering whether a robot or avatar can act as a surrogate for a
human mediator, it is logical to assume that the robot or avatar must be able
to replicate human physical and intellectual processes precisely. And if the
goal is to provide a substitute for a human mediator that literally is as similar
as possible—in effect a twin for that human—then this concern is well-
founded.
But there is an important caveat. Artificial intelligence may not need to
mimic human appearance, movement, and cognitive processes in order to
achieve desired results. If the goal is not merely to duplicate the performance
of a human mediator but instead to exceed, or even simply supplement, that
performance, then it may prove counterproductive to design a robot or avatar
that is a mirror image of a human. Artificial intelligence that is embodied in a
physical form very different from a human, or that does not assume any form
at all but instead exists merely in a “cloud,” may be able to engage a human
party who refuses to, or is unable to, engage with another human (at least at
this particular point in time). Variables that include the personalities of the
parties, the parties’ present physical and emotional circumstances, the
relationship among the parties, and the parties’ comfort level with technology
are among the factors that will determine whether it is most advisable to
introduce artificial intelligence into a dispute resolution process in the form
of a very realistic humanoid robot.
With that caveat in mind, there remains great value in exploring the
question of whether a human mediator’s place at the proverbial mediation
table can be assumed by a humanoid robot. The most recent generation of
robots and avatars has four critical human capabilities: “engagement,
emotion, collaboration, and social relationship.”
23
First, the article will
discuss what is meant by these terms. Later subsections will provide
examples of robots demonstrating these capabilities.
Engagement refers to the ability to initiate, maintain, and terminate a
connection to another individual.
24
As suggested earlier, in order to engage, a
device must behave intelligently. The direction of the eyes, the nod of the
head, hand gestures, body position, the delay before response, the
determination of when to interrupt—these cultural cues have been carefully
23
Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 30.
24
Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
113
studied and deconstructed, and, as a result, it increasingly is possible for
robots and avatars to connect with humans by using these cues.
25
Emotions play a major role in human behavior and are critical when it
comes to initiating and sustaining relationships. Emotions can create
obstacles to problem solving by diverting attention from substantive issues,
damaging relationships, or providing opportunities for exploitation.
26
But
emotions also can be a valuable asset, providing motivation, enhancing
relationships, and making it easier to listen and learn.
27
Researchers are
developing computational theories of emotion that allow robots and avatars
to interact emotionally with humans, concluding that emotions are closely
intertwined with cognitive processing “both as antecedents (emotions affect
cognition) and consequences (cognition affects emotions).”
28
In order to
interact with humans, a robot or avatar must recognize and understand cues
such as facial expressions, gestures, and voice intonation and, in turn, convey
information about its own emotional state by using appropriately responsive
cues.
29
Collaboration is, of course, a term that is near and dear to the hearts of
dispute resolvers and problem solvers. Robots and avatars are being designed
that can work together with humans (and possibly other robots and avatars)
to achieve a shared goal.
30
Collaboration is a higher level process dependent
on engagement, but the relationship is not strictly hierarchical.
31
The
progress of the collaboration can affect how engagement behaviors are
interpreted because, for example, failure to make eye contact when the
collaborators both are focusing on a document will not indicate intent to
disengage.
32
Social relationships between humans and robots or avatars to date have
been short-term with an immediate collaborative goal such as shopping or
entertainment.
33
But that is changing. A social relationship is an extended
25
Id.
26
ROGER FISHER &DANIEL SHAPIRO, BEYOND REASON:USING EMOTIONS AS YOU
NEGOTIATE 5–6, 8 (2005).
27
Id. at 7–10.
28
Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 30 (citing J. Gratch et al., Modeling the Cognitive
Antecedents and Consequences of Emotion, 10 J. C
OGNITIVE SYS.RES. 1, 1–5 (2008)).
29
Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 30.
30
Id. at 31.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
114
engagement that may be necessary, for instance, to address issues that require
behavioral modification such as weight loss and substance abuse.
34
Domestic
relationship and separation issues, for example, are often a subject of
mediation and may require changes in behavior. A social relationship can
improve collaboration and thus increase the chances of achieving a desired
goal.
35
This brief discussion of these capabilities will make it easier to
appreciate and understand the sophistication of the artificial intelligence
devices described below. And it certainly helps us understand what will be
necessary for an artificial intelligence device to replace a human in a
collaborative process. But again, please keep in mind that these
characteristics will not be necessary in every circumstance and, in fact, are
not present in all of the following examples. The fact that an artificial device
does not have all the qualities necessary for an extended human interaction
does not alter the fact that the device still may be able to accomplish a
specific goal. And the fact that an artificial device does not replicate a human
precisely may lead to more productive human interactions in certain
situations.
III. THE ADVERB:ROBOTS BEHAVING INTELLIGENTLY
In order to determine how behavioral artificial intelligence devices can
be integrated into dispute resolution and problem solving processes, it will be
helpful to explore how those devices are being used in other contexts.
Although some of the current applications are not immediately transferable
to ADR, they do illustrate the state-of-the-art for artificial intelligence and
may suggest potential applications. One application that certainly deserves
close examination is robotic technology.
Robotic technology represents a type of artificial intelligence that has
intrigued both scientists and the public at large for generations.
36
On the one
hand, scientists are driven by intellectual curiosity and professional demands
to discover new information and tools that explain and simplify our lives.
37
34
Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 31.
35
Id.
36
See, e.g., ISAAC ASIMOV, I, ROBOT (Bantam Spectra Books 2004) (1950); MARY
WOLLSTONECRAFT SHELLEY, FRANKENSTEIN (Maurice Hindle ed., Penguin Classics
2003) (1818).
37
There is, however, some debate about the relationship among supply, demand,
and scientific innovation:
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
115
The public, on the other hand, often is inspired by popular culture that
romanticizes the possibilities of the future.
38
Whatever the reason behind the
fascination, however, one thing is apparent—robotic technology already is
part of contemporary modern life and it quickly is becoming even more
integral.
39
Robots can present a variety of appearances that range from shockingly
lifelike to futuristically hybrid human-mechanical. Carnegie Mellon
University’s Valerie and the Naval Research Laboratories’ George, for
example, present only a human face on top of a generic, metallic, cylindrical
mobile base.
40
In contrast, Geminoid closely replicates human appearance
and movements.
41
The European Union’s JAST robot has a small cartoon-
like head mounted on a torso with two highly dexterous humanlike arms
(allowing for collaboration on assembly tasks) and the Massachusetts
The ‘classical’ Schumpeterian position is that demand plays little or no role at all;
that innovation is directed entirely by entrepreneurs who force the development of
new markets. To the contrary, however, there is at least some empirical evidence of
supply-demand interaction in industrial markets, although the role of the consumer
demand in innovation has remained much more obscure. It is becoming accepted,
however, that innovation in consumer environments is highly dependent upon
factors of socialization that merge utility with symbolic and cultural factors, and that
this involves subtle transfers of knowledge from consumers to producers about
emerging social trends and preferences.
Young et al., supra note 13, at 96 (emphasis added) (discussing the impetus behind
technological developments such as the iRoomba domestic robot).
38
See id. Even scientists themselves, such as Bill Smart of Washington University
in St. Louis, are lured by the media portrayal of life in the twenty-first century: “When I
envision the future of robots, I always think of the Jetsons.” Modern Use, supra note 8.
39
Young et al., supra note 13, at 95. The growing presence of robots in society
prompted one scientist to remark that, “[s]imilar to how we encounter computing in our
daily lives, people may soon have little choice in the matter of interacting with robots.”
Id. at 95; see also Robotics Integrated with Human Body in Near Future? Technology
Gulf Between “Have” and “Have Nots” Predicted by 2020, S
CIENCE DAILY, Dec. 8,
2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081205100137.htm (excerpting
Antonio Lopez Pelaez & Dimitris Kyriakou, Robots, Genes, and Bytes: Technology
Development and Social Changes Towards the Year 2020, 75 T
ECH.FORECASTING AND
SOC.CHANGE 1176 (2008)); Trust Me, I’m a Robot, THE ECONOMIST, Jun. 8, 2006, at 18,
available at http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=7001829.
40
See Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 31, for a photograph of George.
41
Id. Geminoid is a very realistic humanoid robot modeled after Hiroshi Ishiguro,
professor at Osaka University and researcher at ATR Intelligent Robotics and
Communication Laboratories. Videos of Geminoid and a description of its development
and design are available at http://www.pinktentacle.com/2006/07/geminoid-videos/.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
116
Institute of Technology Media Lab’s Leonardo closely resembles a small
animal with significant expressive capability, particularly in its face.
42
Mel is a penguin designed for “hosting.”
43
Mel resembles a stuffed
animal and has a moveable head, beak, and wings on top of a mobile base.
44
He can guide and inform humans about environments such as stores and
museums, and supervise human actions with objects found in those
environments.
45
Using algorithms for initiating, maintaining, and terminating
conversations, Mel has demonstrated that he can follow a human’s face and
gaze, and also look and point at shared objects at appropriate times.
46
Mel
can nod his own head, recognize human head nods, converse about himself,
participate in collaborative demonstrations, locate a human in an office
environment, engage the human in a conversation noting where that person is
looking and the time that passed since the person last spoke, and respond to
human cues signaling a desire to disengage.
47
Humans respond when Mel
tracks their faces, returning Mel’s gaze, and they nod more frequently at Mel
when he recognizes their nods.
48
Numerous examples from various disciplines and professions
demonstrate how robots can be used. If the health sciences, for instance, find
it productive to use robots when a patient’s life, or at least his or her health
and well-being, literally may be at risk, then certainly there is a role for
robots in ADR.
Psychologists, for example, are using this form of artificial intelligence
to achieve fairly sophisticated interactions with young patients suffering
developmental disorders such as autism.
49
In this particular application,
42
See Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 32 (displaying photographs and descriptions
of JAST and Leonardo).
43
Id.
44
Id.; see also id. at 34 (displaying a photograph of Mel).
45
See Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 32. It is not unusual for robots to have a
gender. Mel’s creators identify to Mel as a male.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
Id. at 32–35.
49
Kozima et al., supra note 13, at 3 (describing the success of Keepon, a therapeutic
robot used with autistic children). Social robots also have been and continue to be
developed for children who do not have developmental disorders: “This research trend is
motivated not only by the potential pedagogical, therapeutic, and entertaining
applications of interactive robots, but also by an assumption that the development and
underlying mechanisms of children’s embodied interaction form a fundamental
substratum for human social interaction in general.” Id. at 4. In other words, the way that
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
117
intelligent technology is embedded in a social robot, an electronic device
with humanoid or other “creature-like” characteristics.
50
These robots are
programmed to interact with children in a manner that replicates human
interaction “by exchanging a variety of social cues, such as gaze direction,
facial expression, and vocalization.”
51
Notably, social robots have been able
to elicit desirable behavior from autistic children that those children typically
children interact with social robots will inform scientists of the appropriate characteristics
to make social robots successful with adult interactions. Id;see also David Allen Larson,
Technology Mediated Dispute Resolution (TMDR): A New Paradigm for ADR, 21 O
HIO
ST.J. ON DISP.RESOL. 629, 675–77 (2006) (discussing how children with autism can
interact productively with avatars in a collaborative virtual environment).
50
Kozima et al., supra note 13, at 4; Young et al., supra note 13, at 96–99. Social or
“sociable” robots can be defined as:
[T]hose which understand and communicate using human language to allow them to
participate and be understood as social actors. Sociable robots could use human-like
facial expressions that indicate their general state, or gestures such as shrugging,
indicating that they do not understand a command. Or they could monitor facial
expressions to determine if users are happy or distressed. This approach, in addition
to the pure utility of communication, also considers user comfort, perception,
naturalness and ease of communication
.
Id. at 97–98. The problem that faces robot designers, however, is known as the “uncanny
valley”—“the more human-like a robot is, the more believable and comfortable people
find it. However, as likeness increases there is a breaking point beyond which familiarity
drops and robots become eerie. . . . ” Id. at 98; see also Holz et al., supra note 7, at 84–
86; Masahiro Mori, The Uncanny Valley, 7 E
NERGY 33, 33–35 (Karl F. MacDorman &
Takashi Minato trans., 1970), available at http://www.androidscience.com/
theuncannyvalley/proceedings2005/uncannyvalley.html; Chris Rollins, Realistic Robots
Approach the Edge of the Uncanny Valley (Nov. 24, 2008),
http://www.scientificblogging.com/welcome_my_moon_base/realistic_robots_approach_
edge_uncanny_valley. The theory of the uncanny valley, hypothesized by Japanese
scientist Masahiro Mori nearly forty years ago, assumes that “this eeriness will not be
overcome until robots mimic human sociality so well that we do not cue in on the fact
that we are interacting with a robot.” Young et al., supra note 13, at 98. This may explain
why one group of scientists developed their “Keepon” robot as a hybrid of minimalist
design and essential humanoid features: “We believe that some basic traits common to
people and animals (e.g. lateral symmetry and two eyes) are important cues to the
potential for social agency. At the same time, keeping the appearance simple . . . is
important for helping people understand and feel comfortable with the robot’s behavior.”
Kozima et al., supra note 13, at 4.
51
Kozima et al., supra note 13, at 4. Social robots in this setting are designed to
provide “touch, eye contact, and joint attention” because they are “fundamental behaviors
that maintain child-caregiver interactions and establish a basis for empathetic
understanding of each other’s mental states.” Id. at 5.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
118
do not demonstrate in their daily lives.
52
Not only have many of these
children interacted directly with the robot to a greater degree than they have
interacted with humans, they also have relied on the robot to facilitate
interaction with third parties.
53
Thus, through the use of robotic technology,
psychologists increasingly are able to achieve therapeutic results that
otherwise would be difficult to obtain.
54
If robots can elicit positive and desirable responses in this therapeutic
context, then certainly one can imagine dispute resolution or problem solving
circumstances where a social robot might encourage a productive response
even though traditional attempts have failed.
Similarly, there is increasing interest in using social robots to fulfill the
healthcare needs of an aging population.
55
The objective in this case is to
create a robot that not only serves a utilitarian purpose, but also provides a
“hedonic” experience.
56
The fact that robots can both provide this relatively
high level of social experience, and also be perceived as something more
than a piece of equipment, suggests that robots may be able to collect
information from a party frankly too frustrated to communicate directly with
other humans.
One team of roboticists is fine-tuning a robotic caretaker to work with
the elderly in their homes, providing services and companionship that will
enable aging people to retain greater independence for a longer period of
52
Id. at 12 (describing the success of Keepon, a therapeutic robot used with autistic
children).
53
Id. at 12–13.
54
Id. at 13.
55
See generally Marcel Heerink et al., The Influence of Social Presence on
Acceptance of a Companion Robot by Older People, 2 J.
OF PHYS.AGENTS 33, 33 (2008),
available at http://www.jopha.net/index.php/jopha/article/view/28/21; Martha Pollack,
Intelligent Technology for an Aging Population: The Use of AI to Assist Elders with
Cognitive Impairment, AI M
AGAZINE, Summer 2005, at 9, available at
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/cmps080j/Spring08/AIMag26-02-article.pdf.; Kathleen
Richardson, My Friend the Robot, T
IMES HIGHER EDUCATION (UK), Feb. 16, 2007,
available at
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=207843§ioncode=26;
Sherry Turkle, Robot as Rorschach: New Complicities for Companionship, Association
of Advancement of Artificial Intelligence 2006 Workshops, available at
www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2006/WS-06-09/WS06-09-010.pdf.
56
Heerink et al., supra note 55, at 33. The hedonic aspect is integral because
“[e]lders do not always willingly accept new technologies. . . . [R]obots are not only
perceived as assistive devices, they are also perceived as social entities. . . .” Id.; see also
Kozima et al., supra note 13.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
119
time than they otherwise might have.
57
This type of robot can be
programmed to fit the specific needs of its owner, such as assisting a visually
impaired owner with navigation around the house or reminding a cognitively
impaired owner to take medication, while simultaneously providing basic
social interaction.
58
As can be the case with other robotic technology
applications, the advent of social robots to care for the elderly also eases the
strain on a limited labor pool.
59
57
Heerink et al., supra note 55, at 33–34 (explaining the benefits of using artificial
intelligence for eldercare); Pollack, supra note 55, at 9 (discussing demographic shifts
that make robotic and automated eldercare a necessity). One author notes:
[A]ssistive technologies now being developed may enable older adults to “age in
place,” that is, remain living in their homes for longer periods of time. A large body
of research has shown that older Americans prefer to maintain independent
households as long as possible. Additionally, institutionalization [of the elderly] has
an enormous financial cost, not only for elders and their caregivers, but also for
governments. . . . Thus technology that can help seniors live at home longer provides
a “win-win” effect, both improving quality of life and potentially saving enormous
amounts of money.
Id.
58
See Heerink et al., supra note 55, at 33; Pollack, supra note 55, at 12–14
(commenting on the types of assistive technology currently used in eldercare). In addition
to social robots,
an increasing number of [other eldercare] devices rely on AI and other advanced
computer-based technologies. Examples include text-to-speech systems for people
with low vision; a digital programmable hearing aid that incorporates a rule-based
AI system to make real-time decisions among alternative signal-processing
techniques based on current conditions; and a jewelry-like device that allows people
with limited mobility to control household appliances using simple hand gestures. In
addition, significant research has been done to design obstacle-avoiding
wheelchairs.
Id. at 10–11.
59
Pollack, supra note 55, at 10–11. The substitution of robotic workers for human
ones is particularly important in the field of eldercare because:
We are in the midst of a profound demographic shift, moving from a world in
which the majority of the population is relatively young to one in which a significant
proportion of people are over the age of 65. . . . While many older adults will remain
healthy and productive, overall this segment of the population is subject to physical
and cognitive impairment at higher rates than younger people. It is important to keep
in mind that there is growth not just in absolute number of older adults, but also in
the proportion of the population that is over the age of 65; there will thus be fewer
young people to help older adults cope with the challenges of aging.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
120
The percentage of older adults in the United States is rapidly increasing
and will more than double between the years 2010 and 2030.
60
Although
older adults may suffer cognitive impairments as they grow older, many
retain the ability to engage in face-to-face conversations.
61
Because face-to-
face conversation is multimodal (verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal
behavior), allows for repetition and clarification, and has mechanisms to help
focus participants’ attention, individuals with impairments still may be able
to communicate face-to-face using methods that remain available.
62
Believing it is necessary to establish social and emotional ties in order to
motivate older adults over extended periods of time, researchers created an
avatar relational agent to interact with older adults (aged 62 to 84) every day
for two months in an effort to encourage those adults to exercise by
walking.
63
Although the researchers would have liked to use unconstrained
Id. at 9. As of the year 2000, the number of people over the age of sixty-five in the United
States equaled approximately 12.3% of the population; this figure is expected to increase
to 19.2% of the population by the year 2030. Id. at 10.
60
Timothy Bickmore et al., “It’s Just Like You Talk to a Friend”: Relational Agents
for Older Adults, 17 I
NTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS 711 (2005), available at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/05_IWC_BTCLCKHT.pdf.
61
Id.
62
Id.
63
Id at 5. Using the term “embodied conversational agents” (ECA) to describe the
relational agents it employs, the College of Computer and Information Science at
Northeastern University is engaged in a variety of fascinating projects that use ECAs in
the medical context in a manner that clearly is applicable to ADR processes. See
Relational Agents Group of Northeastern University,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/index.html. For an example of an
exchange between a relational agent and a user, see Figure 6, Partial Transcript of Sample
Conversation Between Subject and Agent (A=Agent ; U=User):
1. A: Hello, Bertha. Great to see you.
2. U: Hi Laura.
3. A: How are you feeling today?
4. U: I'm not feeling so great.
5. A: I am sorry to hear that.
6. A: Tell me more about how you are feeling.
7. U: I'm tired.
8. A: How tired are you feeling?
9. U: I'm pretty beat.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
121
10. A: Good grief, I hope you’re not getting sick. Can you get some rest soon?
11. U: I think so.
12. A: That is great. I hope you come back feeling refreshed.
13. U: Me too!
14. A: So, are you from the East Coast originally?
15. U: No, I'm from another country.
16. A: Wow.
17. U: And you? Where are you from?
18. A: I was created right here in Boston.
19. U: Really?
20. A: How do you like living in Boston?
21. U: It's great.
22. A: Really?
23. U: Yeah.
24. A: So, is there anything I can do to help make this a more productive
working relationship?
25. U: Nope, everything is OK.
26. A: That's wonderful.
27. U: Yeah.
28. A: So, let us talk about your pedometer readings.
29. A: Do you think you might do any more walking today?
30. U: No, I'm all done walking for today.
31. A: Do you have a good pedometer reading?
32. U: Yes, I have a good pedometer reading for today.
33. A: How many steps did you walk for today?
34. U: 10,525
35. A: Here is your progress chart. (progress chart is displayed)
36. A: So, let us talk about how you did since the last time we got together.
37. A: Your long term goal is to walk 10,000 steps a day.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
122
speech input, concern about speech recognition software and natural
language understanding led the researchers to offer on-screen multiple choice
responses, dynamically updated throughout the conversation.
64
Users were
given touch-screen monitors and results were compared with individuals
given only pedometers and educational pamphlets.
65
The vast majority of
respondents interacting with the relational agent looked forward to those
interactions (75%), found the system easy to use, and perhaps most
importantly, registered a statistically significant increase in recorded
pedometer steps as compared to the control group.
66
Reporting they would
like to continue interacting with Laura (the avatar),
67
users indicated that
although the relationship initially was strange, by the end of the two month
period they liked, trusted, and even cared for Laura.
68
Several users even
reported that they felt that Laura also liked and cared about them.
69
Note, however, that in a second study the researchers found that although
the dialogues were written to provide significant variability in each day’s
interaction, most participants found the conversations repetitive at some
point and consequently, many lost their motivation to follow the relational
agent’s advice.
70
One study participant remarked, for example, that “it would
be great if Laura could just change her clothes sometime.”
71
The researchers
then designed a virtual laboratory to further explore long-term human-virtual
agent relationships, and their first study evaluated how the perception of
38. A: The last time we talked you said you would walk 10,000 steps.
39. A: According to your pedometer you walked 10,525 steps.
40. A: Looks like mission accomplished on the exercise.
41. A: We're doing some great work together.
Id. at 16.
64
Id. at 6.
65
Bickmore, et al., supra note 60, at 3.
66
Id. at 20–23.
67
Id. at 21 (using a rating system of 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “very much”, users
reported an average score of 6.4).
68
Id. at 25.
69
Id.
70
Timothy Bickmore & Daniel Schulman, A Virtual Laboratory for Studying Long-
Term Relationships Between Humans and Virtual Agents, 2009 P
ROC. OF 8TH INT’L.
C
ONF. ON AUTONOMOUS AGENTS &MULTI-AGENT SYS. (2009) 1, 6, available at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/AAMAS09.pdf.
71
Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
123
agent repetition impacts adherence to a health behavior modification
program.
72
This study, which involved only twenty-four participants and
produced admittedly preliminary results, concluded that there is a negative
effect as dialogue variability declines.
73
Participants’ performance relative to
their walking goals decreased significantly over time when perceptions of
repetition increased.
These observations certainly are not surprising and serve as reminders
that, as with human-to-human interactions, variability is a productive (and
even essential) attribute for engagement. One cannot expect parties involved
in a problem solving process to continue to be engaged with a relational
agent that falls into a predictable, and eventually tiresome, pattern. Given
current technology, even the most sophisticated relational agent will have a
diminished capacity to provide conversational, emotional, tonal, facial, and
physical responses as compared to a human. Consequently, it is particularly
important to ensure that a relational agent does not fall into a discouragingly
predictable pattern.
Avatars have been used successfully in other health care contexts. Two
empathetic middle-aged avatar discharge nurses, one African-American and
one Caucasian, were created to help hospital patients with low health literacy
read and follow directions.
74
Understanding the value of multiple modalities
for communicating health care information, the virtual nurses were given the
ability to hold and point at an image of each patient’s After Hospital Care
Booklet (AHCP), providing verbal explanations while the patient followed
along in a paper copy with explicit instructions as to when to turn the page.
75
The nurses spoke with the patients once a day every day, used a short “open
book” quiz format to confirm patients’ understanding, and alerted human
nurses to intervene if a patient failed a quiz a second time, even after the
virtual nurse guided the patient to where the correct answers could be found
in the AHCP.
76
The system thus offered an intuitive conversational agent
interface, redundant modalities for communicating medical information
72
Id.
73
Id. at 7.
74
See Timothy Bickmore et al., Taking the Time to Care: Empowering Low Health
Literacy Hospital Patients with Virtual Nurse Agents, Notes before the Proceedings of
the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1 (2009),
available at http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/CHI09.VirtualNurse.pdf.
75
Id. at 4.
76
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
124
(screen images, printed text, and synthetic speech), and comprehensive
checks.
77
Recognizing the importance of caring, empathy, and good “bedside
manner,” the nurses’ informational dialogue was augmented with relational
dialogue and relational behavior.
78
The nurses (who traveled around the
hospital on a mobile kiosk), addressed patients by name, began every
interaction with a social chat, used appropriate humor, offered feedback at
every empathetic opportunity, and referred to information discussed in
previous interactions in an attempt to foster continuity.
79
Forty-nine patients
aged 20 to 75 found the system very easy to use after less than a minute of
training, reported high satisfaction, expressed few reservations about
receiving medical information from an avatar, and stated that they would
follow the nurses’ directions.
80
In a second study, seventy-four percent of hospital patients stated that
they actually would prefer to receive discharge directions from the virtual
nurse rather than a doctor or a human nurse.
81
Patients reported that they did
not receive enough time and attention from either the doctors or hospital
nurses and very much appreciated that fact that the avatar nurses would
spend whatever time was necessary to ensure that the patients understood the
directions.
82
The hospital patients, who typically are entirely submissive and
completely dependent on hospital staff, felt empowered and less helpless
because they understood relevant medical information that allowed them to
be more actively involved in their own health care.
83
Empowered? Less helpless? More actively involved in the resolution of
their problem? Mediators often work long and hard to assist parties to
achieve these results. In fact, “[i]n a transformative approach, empowerment
and recognition are the two most important effects that mediation can
produce, and achieving them is its most important objective.”
84
If avatars can
help achieve results like this when a patient’s life literally may be at risk,
77
Id. at 9.
78
Id. at 4–5.
79
See Bickmore et al., supra note 74, at 6.
80
Id. at 9.
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Robert Baruch Bush & Joseph Folger, THE PROMISE OF MEDIATION:RESPONDING
TO
CONFLICT THROUGH EMPOWERMENT AND RECOGNITION 84 (1994).
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
125
then it frankly is absurd to claim that avatars have no role to play in dispute
resolution or problem solving.
A medical research team at Carnegie Mellon University has
demonstrated that artificial, robotic intelligence can accomplish tasks
previously considered impossible.
85
These scientists have developed a
surgical robot that can perform minimally invasive surgical procedures
without significant disruption of internal organs that a human surgeon simply
cannot replicate.
86
Controlled with a joystick and designed with multiple
joints that adjust automatically to maneuver through the intricate pathways of
the human body, the robot mimics the natural movements and biological
structure of a live being—in this case, a snake—to accomplish its goal while
reducing the risks and complications associated with traditional surgery.
87
Granted, although the application of snake-like mobility to a dispute
resolution process may not be immediately apparent, this example illustrates
that in certain situations robotic devices can accomplish what humans cannot.
The fact, however, that this robot can be controlled so precisely confirms that
the facial expressions and movements of a human-like robot also can be
controlled to replicate those of a human to a very precise degree.
The United States Armed Forces are well aware of robots’ potential
applications. Robots can be dispatched, for example, into areas too dangerous
for human personnel.
88
The same research team that created the surgical
snake was enlisted to design and build a robot paramedic that can initiate
diagnosis of a wounded soldier’s condition before human paramedics are
85
Kristina Grifantini, Snakelike Robots for Heart Surgery, TECH.REV., Apr. 4,
2008, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/20516/; see also
Cardiorobotics, Inc., http://cardiorobotics.com/about.htm (last visited Oct. 2, 2009);
Howie Choset’s Serpentine Robots, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biorobotics/serpentine/
serpentine.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2009).
86
Grifantini, supra note 85 (explaining how the robotic snake can perform
minimally invasive surgical procedures).
87
Id. As of April 2008, the scientists and their reptilian robot had operated
successfully on “nine pigs and two human cadavers.” Id. The team’s company,
Cardiorobotics, “expects to begin human clinical trials” for the apparatus sometime in
2009. See Cardiorobotics, Inc., supra note 85.
88
Jennifer Chu, A Robomedic for the Battlefield, TECH.REV., Feb. 3, 2009,
available at http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22045/. The need for prompt
diagnosis is particularly important in the context of military action because 86% of
fatalities on the battlefield occur within the first thirty minutes after a wound is inflicted.
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
126
able to remove him safely from the battlefield.
89
The fact that the same
research team that designed the snake was involved in this wartime
application illustrates the flexibility and adaptability of robotic technology.
The robot also can be used to “assess [a soldier’s] injuries as he’s being
carried to a safe location,” thereby enabling the paramedics to concentrate on
transporting the patient while helping them avoid further casualties.
90
The
ability to make a diagnostic assessment, obviously, is an invaluable example
of artificial intelligence.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the military also has used robots to conduct
operations and inflict injury on opposing forces.
91
One such robot is the
unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), a device controlled remotely and—like the
robomedic—used to perform duties that would be significantly more
dangerous for a human soldier to fulfill.
92
In fact, American forces currently
use an estimated six thousand UGVs in the Middle East and according to one
report, “the military goal is to have approximately 30% of the Army
comprised of robotic forces by approximately 2020.”
93
To combat the ethical
89
Id. Like the surgical snake, the “robomedic” is controlled with a joystick from a
remote location. Id.; see also Grifantini, supra note 85 (explaining how a robotic snake
can perform minimally invasive surgical procedures).
90
Chu, supra note 88. The United States Army already uses sophisticated
technology to provide urgent care on the battlefield. Id. The Life Support for Trauma and
Transport (LSTAT), for example, is a stretcher that is “essentially a portable intensive-
care unit,” equipped with tools such as a ventilator and a defibrillator. Id. Because the
current LSTAT technology relies on human manipulation, the paramedics are susceptible
to injury while they are working to save a patient. Id. Integrating these tools with the
snake’s robotic technology therefore would decrease the likelihood of additional
battlefield injury. Id.
91
See, e.g., Pir Zubair Shah & Salman Masood, U.S. Drone Strike Said to Kill Sixty
in Pakistan, N.Y. T
IMES, Jun. 23, 2009, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world; Erik
Sofge, America’s Robot Army: Are Unmanned Fighters Ready for Combat?, P
OPULAR
MECHANICS, Mar. 2008, available at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/
military_law/4252643.html; Modern Use, supra note 8; U. of Sheffield (UK) News
Release, Killer Military Robots Pose Latest Threat to Humanity, Feb. 27, 2008, available
at http://www.shef.ac.uk/mediacentre/2008/970.html.
92
Sofge, supra note 91, at 1. While UGVs have yet to be armed with weaponry,
“unmanned aerial vehicles have been loaded with missiles since 2001.” Id. According to
one source, the number of flight hours logged by unmanned aerial vehicles as of October
2006 was 400,000. U. of Sheffield, supra note 91. The UGVs currently are used “to peek
around corners and investigate suspected bombs.” Sofge, supra note 91.
93
Modern Use, supra note 8. Lockheed Martin is one company developing these
robot soldiers of the near future. Sofge, supra note 91. The company is in the preliminary
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
127
concerns prompted by such a vision, scientists developing the technology
intend to maintain the “chain of command” between robots who gather
information and humans who act upon it.
94
The ethical concerns raised by artificial intelligence are complex and
deserve their own dedicated discussion. Clearly, the ethical concerns will be
dramatically increased when discussing artificial intelligence that is
intelligent, the second form of artificial intelligence described in the
introduction. But even when the discussion is limited to devices that only
behave intelligently and must rely on external direction, one still must be
vigilant and monitor the ways in which the device is being controlled.
The armed forces also have high hopes for the use of robotic insects to
conduct reconnaissance and emergency rescue missions.
95
Unlike the robots
described above, however, the robotic insects being developed actually are
more appropriately understood as cyborgs—part animal, part machine.
96
stages of developing a UGV that can drive itself, rather than utilizing remote control
technology. Id. As it stands right now, however, the company’s MULE (Multi-function
Utility/Logistics and Equipment) “is roughly the size of a Humvee . . . [and is] essentially
one of the world’s biggest radio-control cars.” Id.
94
Modern Use, supra note 8. Washington University professor Bill Smart comments
that, “You don't want to give autonomy to a weapons delivery system. You want to have
a human hit the button. You don't want the robot to make the wrong decision. You want
to have a human to make all of the important decisions." Id. Unfortunately, maintaining a
robot-human chain of command still can result in unintended results. For example,
American military personnel remotely controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle have been
accused of launching a missile that killed approximately sixty people attending a funeral
in Pakistan. Shah & Masood, supra note 91.
95
Emily Singer, The Army’s Remote-Controlled Beetle, TECH.REV., Jan. 29, 2009,
available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22039/ [hereinafter Singer,
Remote-Controlled Beetle]; see also Emily Singer, TR10: Biological Machines, T
ECH.
R
EV., Mar/Apr. 2009, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/
biomedicine/22111/ [hereinafter Singer, Biological Machines].
96
Singer, Remote-Controlled Beetle, supra note 95. Building off the momentum of
the cyborg beetle, the Pentagon now is attempting to create an early detection system for
chemical warfare. David Hambling, Cyborg Crickets Could Chirp at the Smell of
Survivors, N
EW SCIENTIST, Jul. 11, 2009, available at http://www.newscientist.com/
article/mg20327165.900-cyborg-crickets-could-chirp-at-the-smell-of-survivors.html. The
idea has been described by one journalist as:
[T]he equivalent of the “canary in a coal mine” . . . The latest plan is to create living
communication networks by implanting a package of electronics in crickets, cicadas,
or katydids—all of which communicate via wing-beats. The implants will cause the
insects . . . to modulate their calls in the presence of certain chemicals.
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
128
Because “beetles and other flying insects are masters of flight control,”
research scientists have decided to integrate the innate biological abilities of
these creatures with artificial intelligence that controls the direction and
duration of the insect’s path.
97
Needless to say, such technology would allow
infiltration and observation of hostile territories with little risk of detection.
98
Furthermore, if a cyborg beetle were intercepted, the ramifications would be
significantly less severe than if a human operative were captured.
99
While military and medical applications might be an obvious step in the
march of technology, one might be surprised to learn the speed at which
robotic technology is being applied in the commercial sector.
100
Robotic
farmhands, for instance, have been designed to combat “a lack of labour
availability in a sector reliant on intense bursts of tough, seasonal work.”
101
Farmers can produce crops more efficiently and economically because these
devices eliminate human error and increase the rate at which difficult tasks
can be accomplished.
102
Similarly, robots can be used in the construction
97
Singer, Remote-Controlled Beetle, supra note 95. Specifically,
The beetle's payload consists of an off-the-shelf microprocessor, a radio
receiver, and a battery attached to a custom-printed circuit board, along with six
electrodes implanted into the animals' optic lobes and flight muscles. Flight
commands are wirelessly sent to the beetle via a radio-frequency transmitter that's
controlled by a nearby laptop. Oscillating electrical pulses delivered to the beetle's
optic lobes trigger takeoff, while a single short pulse ceases flight. Signals sent to
the left or right basilar flight muscles make the animal turn right or left, respectively.
Id.
98
Id. This particular use of the cyborg beetle would require a “rig” that incorporated
a small camera and, if used for rescue missions, a heat sensor. Id.
99
Id.
100
See, e.g., Tom Simonite, Robot Farmhands Prepare to Invade the Countryside,
N
EW SCIENTIST, Jun. 1, 2009, available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17224-
robot-farmhands-prepare-to-invade-the-countryside.html; Steven Mackay, Virginia Tech
News: Team Wins International Competition with Robots Designed to Save Lives of
Construction Workers (Dec. 18, 2008), http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/
story.php?relyear=2008&itemno=808.
101
Simonite, supra note 100 (explaining the rationale behind application of robotic
technology in the agriculture industry).
102
Id. Although there is some concern that current robots cannot perform the same
type of quality control that “a seasoned rustic” does when selecting produce from trees,
scientists are conducting experiments on “autonomous mobile robots . . . [that] can
capture detailed measures of every tree’s foliage and even count the oranges they bear.”
Id. The same technology being developed to measure plants’ physical characteristics also
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
129
industry to perform tasks that are extremely dangerous for human workers to
perform, “such as inspecting high-rises or underwater bridge piers.”
103
Because these robotic technology applications eliminate risks associated with
manual labor, they likely will reduce costs for consumers when widely
adopted.
104
Perhaps even more interesting, however, is the growing number of robots
within the home.
105
Machines such as the iRobot Roomba, “an autonomous
and mobile vacuum cleaner robot that is affordable, has effective utility, and
is a commercially successful product,” are the tip of the iceberg for the
typical household of the near future.
106
The value of domestic robots is being
recognized at an exponential rate: a 2002 survey conducted by the United
Nations determined that “the number of domestic and service robots more
than tripled [over the previous year], nearly outstripping their industrial
counterparts.”
107
is being explored as a tool to minimize the amount of pesticides necessary to protect
crops. Id.
103
Mackay, supra note 100 (discussing the benefits to using robotic, rather than
human, construction workers).
104
See Simonite, supra note 100; Mackay, supra note 100. One industry expert
states that, “Automation is becoming a necessity rather than an enhancement,” for
agriculture. Simonite, supra note 100. Similarly, the increasing number of construction
site fatalities has driven the need for robotic “employees.” Mackay, supra note 100.
105
See, e.g., Young et al., supra note 13 (reviewing two existing types of domestic
robots and the need to refine the social interactive abilities of robots in general to
promote greater acceptance in a domestic context); Trust Me, supra note 39 (discussing
the rapid expansion of robotic technology in a domestic setting).
106
Young et al., supra note 13, at 99. One group of scientists hypothesizes that
“users will perceive domestic robots as a new kind of entity,” rather than as “just another
electronic appliance along with the microwave and home theater system.” Id. This means
that acceptance of social robots in the domestic setting will depend on “past experiences
and external sources . . . Perhaps the strong role of media and exposure to science fiction
has prepared people and has conditioned Pavlovian responses to domestic robots, such as
fear of large robots or the attraction of cute, small robots.” Id. at 101.
107
Trust Me, supra note 39, at 18; see also supra note 105 and accompanying text.
According to Dr. Henrik Christensen, a prominent roboticist with the Swedish Royal
Institute of Technology, significant implications arise from the growing presence of
robots in the home: “Security, safety and sex are the big concerns.” Id. These concerns
arise from the development of more sophisticated machine learning techniques. Id.; see
also Anthes, infra note 173 and accompanying text (defining machine learning); Kane,
infra note 142 (defining machine learning and explaining how its most recent application
has enabled a robot to acquire new facial expressions).
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
130
Regardless of the preceding paragraphs, one still may not be able to
imagine how robots can be integrated into dispute resolution and problem
solving processes. Specifically, it may be difficult to believe that living,
breathing human parties will be able interact with robots as comfortably and
easily as they interact with other humans. But as humans become more
accustomed to automated interactions within their homes, they also will
become more comfortable interacting with robots outside of their homes in a
variety of contexts. Furthermore, parties will come to expect the convenience
and efficiency robots can provide.
108
IV. APPEARANCES MATTER
In an effort to make interactions with robots and other forms of artificial
intelligence feel more natural and comfortable, many scientists now are
focusing on device design and mechanics.
109
These developers believe that
the more realistic and lifelike a social robot appears and behaves, the more
easily it will be able to establish “rapport” with human beings and the more
likely it will be able to achieve the desired result.
110
108
See, e.g., Pollack, supra note 55 (discussing the benefits of artificial intelligence
for the field of eldercare); Young et al., supra note 13; Trust Me, supra note 39
(describing the rapid expansion of robotic technology in the domestic environment).
According to one source, for example, “South Korea has set a goal that 100% of its
households should have domestic robots by 2020.” Id.
109
See, e.g., Holz et al., supra note 7, at 84. One group of scientists notes: “[T]here
is enough evidence to suggest that these robots need to exhibit a certain degree of social
intelligence, for the way they manifest their awareness and react to the presence of
humans, in order to be accepted as social peers, or simply tolerated within humanly
populated environments.” Id.
110
Id. Specifically:
Studies focusing on how the appearance of virtual characters can affect
cooperation, change attitudes, and motivate users indicate that humans treat them as
social partners and, in particular, that many of the rules that apply to human-human
interaction carry over to human-agent interaction. . . .
. . . .
What distinguishes all the research in socially intelligent agents is the emphasis
given to the role of the human as a social interaction partner of artificial agents and,
subsequently, to the relevance attributed to aspects of human-style social
intelligence in informing and shaping such interactions. The consensus in social
agent research is that effective human-agent interaction greatly leverages the
instauration of a human-style social relationship between human and agent.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
131
The need to create robots that will be accepted raises unique challenges.
Some scientists are focusing on the robots themselves—exploring ways to
simulate human biological structures and physiological systems in an effort
to create more physically intelligent robots.
111
Others are focusing on the
humans—analyzing and applying social psychology theories to understand
the ways in which humans learn, as well as the ways in which they adopt and
interact with new technology.
112
Both lines of research require scientists to
Id. (emphasis added); see also Toshiyuki Shiwa et al., How Quickly Should a
Communication Robot Respond? Delaying Strategies and Habituation Effects, 2 I
NT’L J.
OF SOC.ROBOTICS 141 (2009), available at http://www.springerlink.com/
content/t575551x8151nw0p/fulltext.pdf. Essentially, “if a humanoid robot effectively
uses its body’s properties, people will communicate naturally with it.” Id. at 141. On the
other hand, some scientists are concentrating their research on how best to use robots
with existing technology:
[H]umanoid robots still have problems with their perception abilities. This remains
one of the difficulties of using them in the real world. In the future, we expect that
humanoid robots will be able to communicate with us as naturally as we do with one
another. However, this is still too difficult due to various technical limitations,
particularly their perception of human responses toward themselves. . . . Based on
the above considerations, we propose the use of humanoid robots as a medium for
broadcasting information in a public space.
Daisuke Sakamoto et al., Humanoid Robots as a Broadcasting Communication Medium
in Open Public Spaces, 2 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 157–58 (2009), available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/64707h4g142q8482/fulltext.pdf.
111
Holz et al., supra note 7; see also supra note 109 and accompanying text
(describing technological advances in artificial intelligence); Shiwa et al., supra note 110
(noting the importance of robotic reaction time during communication to establish more
realistic human to robot interactions).
112
Young et al., supra note 13. The reason for this application of social science to
computer science is appropriate because:
Domestic robots are fundamentally unlike other common domestic applications
of advanced technology such as the ubiquitous PC. Robots have an invasive physical
presence and a unique interface paradigm: they actively and physically share spaces
with people and display a level of autonomy and intelligence. Unlike the PC, which
stays where it is placed and must be actively engaged and enabled, a robot will
physically interact with and alter its surroundings and may not remain in a simply-
defined allocated space. Furthermore, unlike physically-safe PC-based virtual
environments, interacting with a robot is more like interacting with a living entity.
The robot may move unexpectedly, users must follow its motion cues and physical
state, and may not have direct access to orthodox interfaces such as a keyboard or
display panel. Thus, users of robotic technology often have to learn new interaction
styles. This difference means that we cannot expect people to respond to robots in
the same way that they do to other technologies.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
132
consider the context in which a given robot is to be used, the purpose for
which the robot is intended, and the target user for which the robot was
designed.
113
Anyone hoping to introduce robots and artificial intelligence
into dispute resolution processes must become informed as to the results of
this research.
Although there may be reluctance to rely on artificial intelligence for
purposes more intimate in nature, one very personal area where physical
artificial intelligence is being embraced concerns amputees and prosthetic
technology.
114
Prostheses such as the iWalk PowerFoot One utilize artificial
intelligence to determine and correct the position of artificial limbs—thereby
enabling the devices to simulate more accurately the natural movement of the
human body.
115
To complement the sophisticated functionality of these
Id. at 97 (emphasis added) (endnote omitted); see also Heerink et al., supra note 55;
supra notes 55–56 and accompanying text (noting that certain populations, such as the
elderly, approach technology in a different manner than other demographic groups);
William G. Kennedy et al., “Like-Me” Simulation as an Effective and Cognitively
Plausible Basis for Social Robotics, 2 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 181 (2009), available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3156571qg146p18u/fulltext.pdf. One team of
scientists, for example, identified the way in which human infants acquire knowledge—
that is, through simulation or imitation of another’s behavior: “This simulation ability is
the focus of [the research] and our premise is that humans base their models of others on
themselves, their own capabilities and knowledge, and by using a cognitively plausible
system to provide this capability, we can build cognitively plausible, social robots.” Id. at
182.
113
Young et al., supra note 13. In developing a robotic caretaker for senior citizens,
for example, scientists must take into account the fact that “elders do not always willingly
accept new technologies,” while bearing in mind that the robot might be viewed as a
social entity and not just a utilitarian one. Heerink et al., supra note 55, at 33; see also
Sakamoto et al., supra note 110 (noting that current technological limitations, such as
language recognition problems, make robotic technology particularly well-suited to the
“passive social” application of a broadcast medium).
114
Julian Smith, We Have the Technology to Rebuild Ourselves, NEW SCIENTIST
(2009), available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126884.500-we-have-the-
technology-to-rebuild-ourselves.html. Multiple factors have encouraged the funneling of
resources to research bionic prosthetics, including the rising number of Americans
suffering from diabetes, the ongoing injuries inflicted upon American military personnel
in the Middle East, and the increasing ability to “pack more hardware into a limb than
ever before” through smaller and more sophisticated components. Id.
115
Id. The iWalk PowerFoot was designed by a team of MIT scientists, one of
whom has both scientific and personal motivation for developing more lifelike artificial
limbs: “Hugh Herr, director of the Biomechatronics Group at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, [is] himself a double lower-limb amputee.” Id. The “C-Leg” and the
“Rheo Knee” are other types of prosthetic devices that rely on bionic technology. Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
133
limbs, scientists are developing startlingly realistic coverings to create a more
seamless appearance with the patient’s body and maximize the patient’s
ability to control the limb.
116
In particular, researchers have created a type of
artificial skin, also known as cosmesis, that utilizes artificial intelligence to
sense and react to physical contact with the limb.
117
While this technology
These prostheses rely upon “intelligent software that learns a user’s gait and can adapt to
changing terrain.” Id. One patient who uses such a device, an Afghanistan War veteran
injured by a landmine, now “can run well enough to coach his 11-year-old son’s soccer
team.” Id.
116
Id. One patient with a prosthetic hand commented on the number of people who
have mistaken his artificial limb for the real thing, attributing this to the hand’s silicon
covering. Id. The device, marketed as the “i-Limb,” is “a lightweight plastic hand in
which each digit contains its own motor and can move independently in response to
signals from two sensors attached to skin elsewhere on the user’s body.” Id. The hand
also has intelligent software that enables it to recognize when it has “sufficient grip on an
object” and prohibit further contraction of its “muscles.” Id.; see also John-John
Cabibihan et al., Towards Humanlike Social Touch for Sociable Robotics and
Prosthetics: Comparisons on the Compliance, Conformance, and Hsyteresis of Synthetic
and Human Fingertip Skins, 1 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 29 (2008), available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/55123g34g506xh0m/fulltext.pdf (exploring the
types of synthetic skin currently available and evaluating the ability of each to simulate
human movement and sensation).
117
Smith, supra note 114. This specific cosmesis was created by a team of scientists
hailing from such organizations as NASA and the National Institute of Aerospace. Id. A
primary reason for developing more lifelike cosmeses is the centrality of touch to human
socialization. Cabibihan et al., supra note 116, at 29. Scientists working to improve
current technology in this field have noted that more realistic cosmeses would encourage
greater acceptance of social robots on the one hand and alleviate the negative emotional
effects experienced by amputees on the other:
[O]ne should not easily assume that humans will be comfortable with the idea of
shaking an artificial hand made from a stiff material . . . humanlike skin softness
would be a reasonable requirement for the sociable robots envisioned to directly
interact with humans in a social setting.
Similarly, humanlike appearance and softness characteristics are needed for
prosthetic hands. The hand is the foremost representation of the self-image which
each person projects and which is perceived by others. Any disfigurement of the
hand . . . certainly affects the psychological well-being [and can result in]
depression, feelings of hopelessness, low self-esteem, fatigue, anxiety, and
sometimes suicidal ideation of the patient. . . . [C]oncealment of prosthesis usage is
an effective coping strategy so that the prosthetic users can integrate socially and
prevent stigmatization.
Id. at 29–30.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
134
has been developed to treat human patients, it also has been used to build
more realistic robots.
118
If individuals can learn to rely on artificial intelligence in the form of
prosthetic technology to perform functions that are extremely important,
personal, and intimate, then there is no reason why we cannot learn to rely on
artificial intelligence to perform functions that are communicative in nature.
The drive to develop more sophisticated prostheses is closely aligned to
the desire to design social robots that can mimic the pace of human reaction
and interaction.
119
Because social robots are designed to engage and
communicate with humans, the assumption is that humans will approach
robotic interactions much as they would other types of human interactions.
120
Consequently, users will expect social robots to have both nonverbal and
verbal communication capabilities that replicate human behaviors.
121
To simulate realistic nonverbal acts, roboticists are using the same type
of technology that appears in prosthetic limbs to create robots that can
interact physically with human beings in a more realistic manner.
122
For
instance, roboticists have implanted pressure sensors in the cosmesis and
fingertips of a social robot that can measure the force with which the robot’s
118
See, e.g., Bates, supra note 11 (reporting on a customized robotic doll designed
to look like its owner); Rollins, supra note 50 (describing the increasingly lifelike
appearance of robots); Santo, supra note 11 (discussing a lifelike Einstein robot that can
smile and talk).
119
See, e.g., Shiwa et al., supra note 110, at 142–44 (describing the manner in
which humans conduct themselves in social interactions and how to make robots simulate
this behavior).
120
Young et al., supra note 13, at 97–98.
121
Id. While there seems to be agreement among roboticists and cognitive scientists
that people are more amenable to life-like robots, it is unclear to what extent social robots
need to replicate humanoid behaviors:
[T]he “communication able” appearance of robot [sic] is not defined. In other words,
the reason why a user regards a communication robot as “communication able” is
ambiguous and it is unclear as to what ability of a communication robot is related to
its “ability to act humanly” and its “ability to perform a task.”
Hirotaka Osawa et al., Using Attachable Humanoid Parts for Realizing Imaginary
Intention and Body Image, 1 I
NT’L J. OF SOC.ROBOTICS 109, 109 (2008), available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/eprvw77q622u7266/fulltext.pdf; see also Young et
al., supra note 13, at 98 (discussing the perils of robots approaching the “uncanny valley”
by simulating human expressions, movements, and appearances too closely).
122
See, e.g., Cabibihan et al., supra note 116; Osawa et al., supra note 121; Kristina
Grifantini, A Robot That Learns To Use Tools, T
ECH.REV., Jul. 1, 2008, available at
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21027/.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
135
hand grips an object.
123
When the robot applies the maximum necessary
pressure to retain the object, the hand ceases to contract further.
124
A
domestic robot designed to perform housekeeping duties and programmed
with this technology, for example, would be able to pick up a variety of
household objects without breaking or destroying them.
125
Perhaps more
importantly, this also means that a social robot designed to interact
physically with humans would be able to shake a user’s hand or lift a sickly
patient without injuring him or her.
126
This ability has obvious implications for dispute resolution and problem
solving processes. By shaking hands, for example, a robot quickly would be
able to introduce itself in a very familiar, even comforting, fashion. And
speaking of comfort, conversational agents are being designed that can touch
humans in an empathetic manner.
127
Empathy is a form of emotional support,
and, as discussed earlier, emotions are an important element for establishing
social relationships.
128
A physical touch acknowledges distress, for instance,
and communicates understanding and caring.
129
Studies have revealed that
when health care providers touch their patients, the hospital patients are more
satisfied with their experiences; terminally ill older adults are comforted;
cancer patients’ pain and moods are improved; and pain, anxiety, depression
and fatigue are reduced for a variety of conditions ranging from labor pains
to serious burns.
130
In a recent study, a “touchbot” agent—in this instance a mannequin—
was developed that relied on a glove worn by the human user with an air
bladder placed in the palm that can be inflated and deflated in
synchronization with verbal statements.
131
A dialogue script that included a
greeting, introduction, social chat, a discussion concerning the user’s feelings
123
Cabibihan et al., supra note 116, at 30–31.
124
Id.
125
Id.
126
Id; see also Heerink et al., supra note 55 (discussing the use of social robots to
care for the elderly).
127
See Timothy Bickmore & Rukmal Fernando, Towards Empathetic Touch by
Relational Agents, Notes before the International Conference on Autonomous and Multi-
Agent Systems (2009), available at http//::www.ccs.neu.edu/research/rag/publications/
AAMAS09-empathy.pdf.
128
Id. at 1; see also supra notes 16–19 and accompanying text.
129
Bickmore & Fernando, supra note 127, at 1.
130
Id. (citing numerous empirical studies).
131
Id. at 2.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
136
about cancer, and a closing was used, and empathetic feedback was supplied
by inflating the glove.
132
Participants reported that the agent was
communicating empathy, sympathy, or comfort, but still felt that the hand
was not being controlled by the agent.
133
Although this attempt clearly did
not resolve all the questions regarding the ability of an artificial intelligence
device to communicate empathy by touch, it does suggest that a more
realistic, sophisticated device may perform effectively.
A physical greeting is just one type of nonverbal cue. Researchers have
compiled comprehensive lists of nonverbal cues and have described in great
detail the nature of those cues.
134
Questions have been raised as to whether
information technology will allow parties to communicate the signs of
availability and affection necessary for affective relationships.
135
For those
who believe that nonverbal cues are essential for establishing the trust and
intimacy necessary for effective problem solving and dispute resolution (a
viewpoint to which the author does not subscribe), a robot’s ability to
provide appropriate, realistic nonverbal cues will hold great value.
For centuries humans have gazed into each other’s eyes, believing that
the eyes were a gateway to the soul.
136
Accordingly, scientists are paying
particular attention to robots’ eyes.
137
As with the design of intelligent
prosthetics, the design of robotic “vision” is modeled after human behavior
and eye movement.
138
In one experiment, a robot was programmed with the
132
Id.
133
Id. at 4. The results also indicated that three of nine participants found the touch
“weird,” and two of nine found it “awkward.” Id.
134
Larson, supra note 49, at 649–57 (summarizing studies that identify and measure
as many as 125 verbal and nonverbal cues for affinity; questioning whether nonverbal
cues are as important as many believe).
135
Id.
136
Recall former President George W. Bush’s memorable declaration after he met
Russian leader Vladimir Putin for the first time: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him
to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a good dialogue . . . I was able to
get a sense of his soul,” Caroline Wyatt, Bush and Putin: Best of Friends, BBC N
EWS,
Jun. 16, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1392791.stm.
137
See, e.g., Osawa et al., supra note 121 (hypothesizing that robots with more
realistic, humanoid eyes and eye movements will foster more effective human-to-robot
interaction); Kristina Grifantini, Making Robots Give the Right Glances, T
ECH.REV.,
Mar. 11, 2009, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22271/.
138
Grifantini, supra note 137. As one scientist noted: “The goal is [to] use human
communication mechanisms in robots so that humans interpret [robot] behaviors
correctly and respond to them in an appropriate way.” Id. In addition to eyesight, other
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
137
ability to mimic the ways in which humans’ eyes act and react when
individuals are communicating with one another.
139
The robot then was
directed to interact with pairs of human test participants, role-playing as a
travel agent in three different “conversational scenarios.”
140
By observing
human eye movements and then programming a robot to replicate those
movements, the scientists created a social robot that could use eye contact to
“guide the flow of a conversation effectively . . . about 97 percent of the
time.”
141
Feeling a bit uneasy? If so, then steady yourself. As we will see in the
next section, the more one learns about the science the more exciting the
potential becomes. But before we go any further, please keep in mind that
artificial intelligence offers new options and avenues for communication
among parties who may be unwilling or unable to proceed along traditional
pathways. Knowing how difficult it can be to encourage and sustain a
difficult conversation, dispute resolvers and problem solvers should be
intrigued by these possibilities.
As expected, scientists are not peering closely only at the eyes. Again, in
an effort to increase social acceptance, robots are being designed to smile,
look surprised, and display a range of facial expressions.
142
This is
accomplished by combining the same type of “muscle” technology used in
prosthetic devices with a life-like cosmesis that is flexible and elastic.
143
The
robot then is pre-programmed with several different expressions that mimic
forms of nonverbal cues that robots may incorporate include touch, gestures, and posture.
Id.
139
Id.
140
Id.
141
Id. Specifically, “[t]hose at whom the robot gazed for longer took more turns
speaking, those to whom [the robot] sent acknowledging glances spoke less, and those
who were ignored completely spoke the least.” Id.
142
See, e.g., Kristina Grifantini, A Robot That’s Learning to Smile, TECH.REV., Jul.
10, 2009, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23825/; Daniel
Kane, Robot Learns to Smile and Frown, U
NIV. OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO, July 9,
2009, http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/07-09Robot.asp; Rollins, supra note 50
(describing the technology used to create more lifelike robots, while cautioning that the
more closely a robot emulates human characteristics, the closer it comes to the “uncanny
valley” of creepiness).
143
Rollins, supra note 50. In one such social robot, the face of the device “has about
30 facial muscles, each moved by a tiny servo motor connected to the muscle by a
string.” Kane, supra note 142 (explaining the mechanical technology used to build a
robot that can replicate human facial expressions).
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
138
those used by humans to communicate specific emotions.
144
Similar to the
way in which it might use eye-movement to interact, a social robot interprets
“cues from the person speaking to it” to determine an appropriate expressive
response.
145
This familiar, “natural” reaction helps to establish an empathic
rapport that makes it easier for humans to interact with a robot.
146
The ability to communicate nonverbal cues obviously is only part of the
challenge of creating a socially acceptable robot. Leaving aside the substance
of the conversation for a moment, the next question is whether a robot can
replicate the manner and cadence of human conversation in addition to
mimicking human physical movements.
When it comes to speech, a social robot does not need to provide a
response as automatically or instantaneously as it does when nonverbal
communication is involved.
147
Social robots do not need to respond as
quickly as other forms of utilitarian technology, such as personal computers
or digital music players, because humans will interact with realistic
appearing social robots much as they would with other humans.
148
Because
“humans [involved in a conversation] usually do not respond instantly,” a
human interacting verbally with a social robot will not expect the robot to
respond immediately.
149
This characteristic of human communication helps
roboticists because, much like a human, a robot requires time to process the
144
Kane, supra note 142 (describing how robots typically are designed to emulate
human expressions).
145
Rollins, supra note 50 (describing the technology used to create more lifelike
robots while cautioning that the more closely a robot emulates human characteristics, the
closer it comes to the “uncanny valley” of creepiness).
146
Id.
147
See, e.g., Shiwa et al., supra note 110 (arguing that the more closely a robot
emulates human behavior, including its communication response time, the more likely
people are to engage successfully with it). One study found that users preferred robots
“that start[ed] motion about 0.3 seconds and start[ed] utterance about 0.6 seconds after
[a] user’s action” to engage with the robot. Id. at 143.
148
Id. This does not mean, however, that there is an indefinite amount of time for
which a human will wait for a social robot to respond. Id. Rather, roboticists are
attempting to determine the upper and lower thresholds of response time to balance the
efficiency of the device on the one hand and the “humanity” of the device on the other.
Id.
149
Id. at 142 (explaining that there is a window of acceptable time in which a robot
can respond, with physical response occurring prior to oral response).
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
139
information it has just received.
150
More importantly, a robot requires time to
formulate a response.
151
Dispute resolution process designers should think expansively and
creatively about how robots can be used. Although the notion of interacting
with an inanimate entity may seem initially unappealing, any reluctance may
be surprisingly easy to overcome after encountering robots that accurately
replicate human behavior in regard to their physical movements, facial
expressions, and verbal patterns. Furthermore, the author has written
extensively in the past concerning children and the ease with which they are
integrating technologies into their lives at the most basic and essential
levels.
152
The reader may not be able to imagine him or herself interacting
with a robot in the same manner as he or she would with a human. But there
is a generation of children quickly moving towards adulthood who spend
significant amounts of time playing with avatars in virtual worlds such as
Second Life
153
and the World of Warcraft.
154
These children often are more
comfortable engaging in technology mediated communication than they are
interacting face to face.
155
Not only will they be able to accept and interact
150
Id.
151
Id.
For example, with one of our robots, speech recognition takes calculation time that
equals the duration of speech; if a user speaks for three seconds, the user needs to
wait for three seconds after the speech, because there is no response from the robot
until the speech recognition process is finished.
Id.
152
See Larson, supra note 49; David Allen Larson, Technology Mediated Dispute
Resolution (TMDR): Opportunities and Dangers, 38 U. T
OL.L.REV. 213 (2006); David
Allen Larson , Online Dispute Resolution: Do You Know Where Your Children Are?, 19
N
EGOTIATION J. 199 (2003).
153
See Second Life, Virtual Worlds, Avatars, Free 3D Chat, Online Meetings,
http://secondlife.com/ (last visited Oct. 2, 2009). “Second Life is an online, 3D virtual
world imagined and created by its Residents.” Id.
154
See World of Warcraft, http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml (last visited
Oct. 2, 2009). World of Warcraft is a popular massively multiplayer online role-playing
game (MMORPG), in which players control a character, or avatar, within a game world
while exploring the landscape, fighting various monsters, completing quests, and
interacting with other players or non-playing characters. The game claims to have more
than 11.5 million fee paying players and it has been referred to as “World of Warcrack”
because of its allegedly addictive nature.
155
See, e.g., Larson, supra note 49, at 644–45 (discussing how a group of
Palestinian and Israeli children were able to discuss their religious and ethnic conflicts in
an online forum and brainstorm workable solutions for the future).
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
140
with social robots, they will expect (and demand) that mediators, arbitrators,
neutrals, and problem solvers do so also.
Recall Mel, the penguin robot described earlier. Mel has demonstrated
that he can both engage and collaborate. His facial expressions can
communicate emotion. Additionally, progress has been made regarding
social interactions, for instance, in the health care engagements described
above. Even though that work still is in its early stages, robots’ and avatars’
ability to behave intelligently and to engage and collaborate with humans
raises interesting possibilities for dispute resolution. If the goal, however, is
to create a robot or avatar that can be a surrogate for a human mediator, then
that robot or avatar must actually be intelligent.
156
156
This, of course, assumes that mediators are intelligent, an assumption that might
be questioned after reviewing ethical complaints brought against mediators. See In re
O.R., No. E034376, 2004 WL 585583, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2004) (affirming a
visitation order based on the parties’ mediated agreement despite the fact that the father
called the mediator and had the agreement reached in mediation changed without the
mother’s knowledge or consent, determining that the mother’s claims of extrinsic fraud
and mistake lacked merit because she would have discovered the change if she had
chosen to carefully review the agreement before it was signed and subsequently approved
by the court); Lamberts v. Lillig, 670 N.W.2d 129 (Iowa 2003) (refusing to enforce
alleged mediated settlement between father and maternal grandparents regarding
visitation where there was no evidence father knowingly relinquished his constitutional
parental caretaking interest when he entered into the agreement); In re Antosh, 169 P.3d
1091 (Kan. 2007) (publicly censuring attorney for improperly acting as “de facto”
mediator in divorce case and accepting fees from both parties).
In In re O.R., the father’s counsel testified about what the mediator did: “The
tentative agreement was reduced to writing, and [the father] had some concerns, so he
called the mediator back and somehow she came up with this agreement based on those
concerns. [And in a rather classic understatement, the counsel added] I’m not certain she
went over that with the mother, apparently not.” In re O.R., 2004 WL 585583, at *2.
In Lamberts, the court stated,
[The father] held a constitutional parental caretaking interest when he entered into
the mediation with Arnie and Lucy. Yet, the document ultimately generated made no
mention of this constitutional interest and provides no evidence of a thoughtful
relinquishment of it. In fact, the document itself and the testimony at trial reveal that
the parties’ approach to the document was relatively informal, with little if any
discussion of the legal ramifications—much less the more specific constitutional
ramifications—of its signing. Indeed, it was generated in a mediation session that
was not attended by counsel for either party. The mediator, when asked whether
there was “any discussion about the facts that there may be underlying fundamental
constitutional rights and issues” involved, explained,
. . . You know what I think that—I don’t remember if that was ever mentioned
or not. It—I continue to try to stay away from any legal issues. I kept saying to both
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
141
V. THE NOUN:INTELLIGENCE
Just like robot designers who are studying humans in order to construct
robots that physically act like humans, software developers are examining the
human brain in an effort to develop more intelligent software applications.
157
European scientists recently created a computer chip that mirrors the
structure of the human brain—enabling it “to mimic the brain’s ability to
learn more closely than any other machine.”
158
The chip is composed of
“200,000 neurons linked up by 50 million synaptic connections. . . . [T]he
researchers recreate the neurons and synapses as circuits of transistors and
capacitors, designed to produce the same sort of electrical activity as their
biological counterparts.”
159
This innovation is particularly important because the more data an agent
can learn and retain from prior experiences, the more effectively it will be
able to simulate human intelligence.
160
Just as humans acquire much of their
knowledge about the world around them from basic life experiences, an
artificially intelligent device also must be able to recognize a particular
experience, process the information from that experience, categorize and
store the resulting data, and recall that data to make an informed decision the
next time it is in a similar situation.
161
One type of artificial intelligence that reproduces an important step in the
human learning process is language recognition.
162
An intelligent device
parties, remember I’m not an attorney, that's not my expertise. My expertise is kids
and that's what I would be arbitrating.
Although it is unnecessary to define the precise threshold at which John would
have become sufficiently informed to have validly waived his constitutional parental
rights, it is clear the threshold was not reached in this case. The document signed at
the mediation is unenforceable.
Lamberts, 670 N.W.2d at 134. In spite of the occasional egregious exception, the author
asserts that we safely can assume that mediators are intelligent.
157
Duncan Graham-Rowe, Building a Brain on a Silicon Chip, TECH.REV., Mar.
25, 2009, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22339/.
158
Id.
159
Id.
160
Id.
161
Id.; see also Erica Naone, Software That Learns from Users, TECH.REV., Nov.
30, 2007, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/19782/.
162
See, e.g., David Talbot, How IBM Plans to Win Jeopardy!, TECH.REV., May 27,
2009, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22702/page1/; see also
Brittany Sauser, Man vs. Machine on Jeopardy!, T
ECH.REV., Apr. 27, 2009, available at
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
142
obviously must be able to understand what the user is saying before the
device can formulate an appropriate response.
163
Accordingly, many forms
of interactive intelligent software include a language processing system,
which operates in a manner similar to internet search engines.
164
One device,
appropriately christened “Watson” by its creators, uses a language processing
system that first divides a spoken sentence into its important elements.
165
The
software then compares the elements to vast amounts of data stored within
the software, cross-references the results for each component, infers the
meaning of the statement through a process of elimination, and finally directs
the device to offer an appropriate response.
166
It may seem elementary,
167
but the value of any language recognition
software would be greatly enhanced if the intelligent device could
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23451/; Brittany Sauser, Is Language
Innate or Learned?, T
ECH.REV., Aug. 2, 2007, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/
blog/editors/17672/.
163
Shiwa et al., supra note 110 (arguing that the more closely a robot emulates
human behavior, the more likely people are to engage successfully with it); Talbot, supra
note 162 (describing IBM’s Watson, a language recognition system).
164
Talbot, supra note 162.
165
Id. Watson is an IBM invention that the company hopes to use in a man-versus-
machine round of the television quiz show Jeopardy!. Id. This is meant to promote the
product for its eventual use: “IBM’s end goal is a system that it can sell to its corporate
customers who need to make large quantities of information more accessible.” Id.
166
Id. According to one computer scientist unaffiliated with the project,
“[T]remendous progress has been made on this task in the last decade by researchers in
natural-language processing . . . [P]itting IBM’s Watson question-answering system
against the top humans in a game of Jeopardy! is a fun way to publicize and showcase
this progress.” Id. Yet the same scientist also remarked that little scientific research has
been published on this particular subject. Id.
167
Recall the phrase “Elementary, my dear Watson,” which often is attributed to Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes at those moments
when Holmes was about to reveal one of his remarkably insightful conclusions to his
trusted, and less talented, confidant Dr. John H. Watson. Holmes, however, did not ever
utter this phrase, at least not in any of Arthur Conan Doyle’s books. The closest he ever
came was in the short story “The Crooked Man.” Holmes noted that Dr. Watson must
have had a busy day. Surprised, Watson asked how Holmes knew. Holmes responded, “‘I
have the advantage of knowing your habits, my dear Watson,’ said he. ‘When your round
is a short one you walk, and when it is a long one you use a hansom. As I perceive that
your boots, although used, are by no means dirty, I cannot doubt that you are at present
busy enough to justify the hansom.’ ‘Excellent!’ I cried. ‘Elementary,’ said he.” The
phrase does appear at the conclusion of a derivative work, the 1929 film The Return of
Sherlock Holmes (Paramount Pictures 1929), although it may have originated in an 1899
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
143
“remember” its answer for use at a later date when asked the same or a
similar question.
168
This ability to remember allows the intelligent device to
provide responses based upon its cumulatively acquired knowledge, which
certainly is more efficient than having to begin the process each time from
the starting point.
169
Recognizing the importance of this capability, scientists
again are turning to the structure and physiology of the human brain to create
intelligent software that mimics our ability to learn—such as the
aforementioned computer chip.
170
Building on this structural replication of
the neural system, a group of University of Wisconsin scientists are studying
the types of stimuli the human brain sends and receives to facilitate the
learning process.
171
These researchers then will apply those stimuli to an
artificial brain, thereby imbuing the intelligent device with the ability to
learn.
172
stage production Sherlock Holmes. RALPH KEYES,THE QUOTE VERIFIER 54 (2006); see
also Mordaunt Hall, The Screen: Holmes and Moriarty, N.Y. T
IMES, Oct. 19, 1929, at 22.
168
One researcher working on “the creation of a ‘cognitive computer’ [asserts that]
the goal of building a computer as quick and flexible as a small mammalian brain is more
daunting than it sounds.” Susan Lampert Smith, Cognitive Computing: Building a Machine
That Can Learn from Experience, Dec. 17, 2008, http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/
news/cognitive-computing-building-a-machine-that-can-learn-from-experience/339.
169
Id. (explaining the importance of machine learning); see also Gravitz, infra note
209 (discussing the “doctor kiosk,” an ATM-like machine being launched for use in the
medical sector); Talbot, supra note 162 (describing IBM’s Watson, a language
recognition system).
170
Smith, supra note 168.
171
Id.
For example, neurons in the brain stem flood the brain with a neurotransmitter
during times of sudden stress, signaling the “fight-or flight” response. “Every
neuron in the brain knows that something has changed. . . . It tells the brain, ‘I got
burned, and if you [sic] want to change, this is the time to do it.” Thus, a cat landing
on a hot stovetop not only jumps off immediately, it learns not to do that again.
Id.
172
Id.
[Research psychiatrist Giulio] Tononi says the ideal artificial brain will need to be
plastic, meaning it is capable of changing as it learns from experience. The design
will likely convey information using electrical impulses modeled on the spiking
neurons found in mammal brains. And advances in nanotechnology should allow a
small artificial brain to contain as many artificial neurons as a small mammal brain.
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
144
Indeed, some success already has been achieved using this type of
“machine learning” technology.
173
A team of scientists at the University of
California at San Diego has created a social robot with humanoid features
that can learn to create new facial expressions.
174
Whereas previous
incarnations of social robots have been programmed to perform a finite
number of facial expressions, this robot was programmed with software that
can recognize different types of facial expressions.
175
The robot moves its
head and facial “muscles,” then looks in a mirror and runs recognition
software to identify the expression it has made.
176
The robot next processes
the information retrieved by the recognition software and runs an algorithm
to determine the “muscles” used to create the expression.
177
Once the
connection between the expression and the muscles has been established, the
robot has “learned” a new way to manipulate its face and communicate a new
emotion.
178
Albert Einstein—or to describe it more accurately, the very realistic
looking and expressive humanoid head of Albert Einstein—has attracted
significant attention.
179
Constructed by Hanson Robotics, Einstein is covered
in a material called “frubber” and has approximately thirty facial “muscles,”
each controlled by a tiny servo motor connected to the muscle by a string.
180
173
See, e.g., Kane, supra note 142; see also Grifantini, supra note 142; Gary
Anthes, Self-Taught: Software that Learns by Doing, C
OMPUTERWORLD, Feb. 6, 2006,
available at
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/108320/Self_Taught_Software_That_Learns_B
y_Doing?taxonomyId=018. Machine learning uses inductive algorithms to process data
gathered by the device and draw inferences based on their results. Id.
174
Kane, supra note 142 (describing how scientists have utilized advances in
machine learning technology to create a robot that can learn to make new facial
expressions).
175
Id.; see also supra notes 142–44 and accompanying text (describing social robots
that use pre-programmed facial expressions to communicate emotion).
176
Id. The scientists termed this process of mobility “body babbling,” a phrase
reflecting the application of human developmental theories to robotics: “Developmental
psychologists speculate that infants learn to control their bodies through systematic
exploratory movements, including babbling to learn to speak. Initially, these movements
appear to be executed in a random manner as infants learn to control their bodies and
reach for objects.” Id.
177
Id.
178
Id.
179
See Leslie Katz, Researchers Get Ready to Learn from Robo-Einstein, July 16,
2009, http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39684312,00.htm.
180
Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
145
Einstein is attracting attention not only because of his realistic facial
expressions, but also because he does not require manual programming. He
has been able to teach himself to smile, frown, and grimace as a result of
research at the University of California at San Diego.
181
The
researchers taught Einstein to form complex expressions by relying on
developmental psychology and feedback from real-time facial expression
recognition.
182
Believing that babies learn to control their bodies through
systematic exploratory movements, including babbling to learn to speak,
UCSD's Machine Perception Laboratory scientists employed the same theory
to teach Einstein to form realistic facial expressions.
183
The unpredictable nature of human conversation continues to pose
significant challenges. Telephone airline reservations systems, for example,
work only because conversations are tightly controlled using system
initiatives and restricted vocabularies.
184
But research focused on machine
learning and human brain replication makes one optimistic that unrestricted
conversation will be possible.
Although this article has referred to robots and avatars as though they are
interchangeable, their differences have significant implications. Graphical
representations of actual persons can be created more easily than realistic
robots that mimic human physical behaviors. Researchers using avatars thus
can concentrate on improving sensing and thinking capabilities, such as
emotion and social relationships, while relying on graphical animation and
rendering technology for physical actions.
185
Sophisticated graphics and
rendering technology are readily available as a result of advancements in the
computer gaming and entertainment industries.
186
A Leonardo avatar has
been developed to complement the Leonardo robot discussed earlier, for
example, and a full body Greta avatar has been given expressive gestures and
facial animation that permit researchers to study the role of emotions and
communication style in conversation.
187
Avatars have helped people change
their diet and exercise behavior while providing an opportunity to study
interactive human social dialogue. If the goal is to introduce artificial
intelligence devices that have the capacity for human interaction
181
Id.
182
Id.
183
Id.
184
Rich & Sidner, supra note 6, at 37.
185
Id. at 38.
186
Id.
187
Id.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
146
(engagement, collaboration, emotion, and social relationship) into dispute
resolution and problem solving processes, then avatars represent the more
immediately available option.
188
VI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS
Not surprisingly, medical research scientists are putting artificial
intelligence software to good use.
189
One team of British researchers, for
example, has created a pair of robot scientists that can conduct genetic
experiments.
190
Whereas previous laboratory robots only could perform
simple experimental tasks, the robotic duo of Adam and Eve actually can
formulate hypotheses, run experiments to test the accuracy of their
hypotheses, and evaluate their results.
191
The utility of this robotic system is
further enhanced by machine learning software that enables the pair to utilize
their discoveries and alter their methodology accordingly.
192
This discovery
188
Although an avatar may be capable of human interaction, given current
technology, the extent and subject matter of that interaction will be limited.
189
Kristina Grifantini, A Step Toward Robo-Science, TECH.REV., Apr. 7, 2009,
available at http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22396/ [hereinafter Grifantini,
Robo-Science]; see also Kristina Grifantini, Editors’ Blog, Robot Scientist Designs Its
Own Experiments, T
ECH.REV., Apr. 2, 2009, available at
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23288/.
190
Grifantini, Robo-Science, supra note 189 (reporting on a scientific system
designed to create and perform its own experiments).
The [first] robotic system, dubbed Adam, hypothesizes about which genes in
yeast code for the enzymes responsible for catalyzing certain biochemical
reactions. . . .
. . . .
Eve will eventually test drugs for treating malaria and schistosomiasis (an
infection caused by several kinds of parasitic worm). Eve will do this by predicting
how drug molecules should interact with laboratory samples. . . .
. . . After Eve has discovered a few key compounds—ones that generate some
desired activity or reactions in the laboratory—it will “make hypotheses about what
could be important about the shape of the chemical that’s causing the activity” [and]
perform further experiments based on those assumptions. . . . Eventually, the two
robots will work together: Adam will create yeast cultures that Eve will use in its
experiments.
Grifantini, Robo-Science, supra note 189.
191
Id.
192
Id.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
147
is particularly significant for healthcare because longer life expectancies have
resulted in a disproportionately aging population.
193
As one geneticist
remarked, “We can’t take ten years to develop a drug anymore.”
194
The study of assistive technology in the field of eldercare also has helped
increase the application and visibility of artificial intelligence
dramatically.
195
Currently, two common types of intelligent software are
used either separately or in conjunction with one another to assist individuals
with cognitive or physical impairment: assurance systems and compensation
systems.
196
Assurance systems ensure the welfare of users by relying on networks of
sensors to monitor daily activities and communicate with a designated
contact person when a deviation occurs.
197
This type of system can range
from the simple to the complex depending on the needs of the user.
198
If a
cognitively impaired user is prone to wandering, for example, then sensors
can be placed by each doorway.
199
If a user trips the sensor by exiting the
premises, a message is transmitted immediately to notify the appropriate
person.
200
More complex systems also are available. An assurance system can
monitor users who have a wide array of potential problems by placing
sensors with different capabilities throughout a dwelling.
201
193
Id.; see also Pollack, supra note 55; supra note 59 and accompanying text
(describing demographic trends that predict nearly 20% of the United States’ population
will be aged 65 or older by the year 2030).
194
Grifantini, Robo-Science, supra note 189.
195
Pollack, supra note 55 and accompanying text (discussing how artificial
intelligence is used to care for the elderly).
196
Id. at 12–13. A third type of system, the assessment system, is still in its early
experimental stage for use in eldercare. Id. at 20. The goal is to establish systems that can
detect whether a user’s cognitive abilities are within normal range for his age group and,
eventually, to use “machine-learning methods to induce a person’s normal level of
functioning and to identify changes from that norm.” Id. at 22.
197
Id. at 13–14. Because these systems commonly are used in eldercare and other
forms of healthcare for cognitively impaired patients, the contact person usually is a
caregiver, such as a nurse or relative. Id.
198
Id.
199
Id.
200
Id. This is of great importance in the realm of eldercare because “wandering is a
significant problem for people with certain types of cognitive impairment.” Id. at 13.
201
Pollack, supra note 55.
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
148
Compensation systems work in concert with users to support and
supplement their physical or cognitive abilities.
202
An example is El-E, a
domestic robot that assists physically impaired users by locating and
retrieving objects out of reach.
203
The robot’s designers, recognizing the
difficulty that robots can have with language recognition, built their device to
respond to visual cues.
204
Using a combination of navigation intelligence and
facial recognition software, the robot can retrieve items without the need for
verbal directions.
205
A wheelchair that responds to its user’s neural transmissions is a second
example of a compensation system.
206
The wheelchairs can be programmed
[T]he network may include a wide range of sensors, which are continually
monitored both to recognize deviations from normal trends that may indicate
problems (for example, failure to eat meals regularly, as determined by lack of
motion in the kitchen) and to detect emergencies that require immediate attention
(for example, falls, as indicated by cessation of motion above a certain height). The
sophistication of the inference performed using the collected sensor data varies from
system to system.
Id.
202
Id. at 14–20.
203
Scientific Blogging, This Robot Can Bring You a Beer—Without Being Told,
Mar. 23, 2008, http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/this_robot_can_bring_
you_a_beer_without_being_told. The team has pursued its research for utilitarian, not
just academic, purposes:
To ensure that El-E will someday be ready to roll out of the lab and into the
homes of patients who need assistance, the Georgia Tech and Emory research team
includes Prof. Julie Jacko, an expert on human-computer interaction and assistive
technologies, and Dr. Jonathan Glass, director of the Emory ALS Center at the
Emory University School of Medicine. El-E’s creators are gathering input from ALS
(also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) patients and doctors to prepare El-E to assist
patients with severe mobility challenges.
Id. The robot’s name, El-E, is derived from “her ability to elevate her arm and . . . the
arm’s resemblance to an elephant trunk. . . . [She] can grasp and deliver several types of
household items including towels, pill bottles, and telephones from floors or tables.” Id.
204
Id. In this case, the user identifies an object using a green laser pointer. Id. The
robot is able to focus on the chosen object, navigate a path towards it, and retrieve the
object for the user. Id.
205
Id.
206
Ariel Sena-Calvillo & Madeline Novey, Brain-Controlled Robots Help People
with Physical Disabilities, R
OCKY MTN.COLLEGIAN, Feb. 10, 2009, available at
http://www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2009/02/10/News/BrainControll
ed.Robots.Help.People.With.Physical.Disabilities-3621402.shtml.
ROBOTS, AVATARS, AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMAN MEDIATOR
149
with customized intelligent software that is able to distinguish among three
different types of neural messages sent from the brain to a body part, with
each message translating into a separate and distinct navigational
command.
207
Again, recognizing the current difficulties associated with
language recognition, scientists achieved their objective by utilizing non-
verbal, physiological cues.
208
One application of artificial intelligence in the medical sector, the
“doctor kiosk,” has similar great potential for widespread acceptance.
209
Akin to an automated teller machine used for personal banking, the doctor
kiosk interacts with a patient to elicit the same information a doctor or nurse
would at a regular check-up.
210
The impetus for developing such a device is
[The system works by] placing flat pads—known as nodes or non-invasive
electroencephalograms—directly on the surface of the cerebral cortex, the part of the
brain responsible for thought, memory, and perceptual awareness. The nodes are
designed to interact and communicate with a person’s brainwaves to an outside
stimulus—in this case, to between seven and twelve nodes positioned on a cap worn
by the user. The information received by the cap is then communicated to the
machine’s robot, which moves accordingly.
Id.
207
Id. (discussing intelligent software that uses a patient’s brainwaves to control and
direct his or her wheelchair). The machine is tailored to each user’s particular abilities:
When designing each wheelchair, [Dr. Jose Del R.] Millán’s team conducts a
series of tests to analyze the individual’s brainwaves and, based on the data,
programs the robot to react to three physical movements: from a finger or hand
twitch to a specific facial movement. . . .
. . . .
“I work with a lot of people with a lot of different disabilities,” [Millán] said of
his interactions with [quadriplegics], people with Multiple Sclerosis and those who
cannot speak in addition to their physical disabilities. He further explained that
brain-controlled wheelchairs are an advantageous substitute for voice-controlled
wheelchairs in this situation
.
Id.
208
Id.
209
Lauren Gravitz, The Doctor Kiosk, TECH.REV., Feb. 25, 2009, available at
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22219/.
210
Id. Specifically, the machine comes replete with:
[A] tabletop computer and a number of peripherals—a blood-pressure cuff, a scale, a
pulse oximeter to measure blood oxygen levels, and a peak-flow meter to determine
whether someone's airways are constricted—as well as a blood-testing device
commonly used in emergency rooms that can measure cholesterol and glucose
OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 25:1 2010]
150
twofold: doctors want to diagnose potential or