# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Slowly, but surely, robots (and virtual 'bots that exist only as software) are taking over our jobs; according to one back-of-the-envelope projection, in ninety years "70 percent of today's occupations will likewise be replaced by automation." Should we be worried?

Kevin Kelly, "senior maverick" at Wired magazine, and source for the above guestimate, says we shouldn't. Instead, argues Kelly, in a Utopian piece titled " Better than Human," we should welcome our new robot overlords. "They will do jobs we have been doing, and do them much better than we can. They will do jobs we can't do at all. They will do jobs we never imagined even needed to be done. [But] they will [also] help us discover new jobs for ourselves, new tasks that expand who we are." People have lost their jobs before, and everything turned out fine:

Two hundred years ago, 70 percent of American workers lived on the farm. Today automation has eliminated all but 1 percent of their jobs, replacing them (and their work animals) with machines. But the displaced workers did not sit idle. Instead, automation created hundreds of millions of jobs in entirely new fields.

If history repeats itself, robots will replace our current jobs, but, says Kelly, we'll have new jobs, that we can scarcely imagine:

In the coming years robot-driven cars and trucks will become ubiquitous; this automation will spawn the new human occupation of trip optimizer, a person who tweaks the traffic system for optimal energy and time usage. Routine robosurgery will necessitate the new skills of keeping machines sterile. When automatic self-tracking of all your activities becomes the normal thing to do, a new breed of professional analysts will arise to help you make sense of the data.

Well, maybe. Or maybe the professional analysts will be robots (or least computer programs), and ditto for the trip optimizers and sterilizers. A quick Google search reveals any number of Web sites like aspjj.com (manufacturers of automated endoscope reprocessors) and wh.com (with their Autoclave Lisa, a fully automatic water-steam sterilizer). There's no reason to think that the delicate profession of robosurgery will advance ahead of the already well-developed field of robosterilization, hence there's no reason to think that the new profession that Kelly envisions will ever materialize. "Trip optimizer" is a similar red herring; Expedia and Kayak have already squeezed out most of what travel agents do, and the industrial-strength time-and-energy optimization of places like FedEx has long since been largely automated. The only thing left is the data analyst, but there are already dozens of new start-ups like Jeff Hawkins's Numenta that aim to do just that, analyzing complex data in real time, more efficiently than humans can. I, too, like the idea of new technologies opening up new jobs, but every time someone makes a specific suggestion I get more worried, not less.

One possibility is that it won't matter. Even if most of our jobs disappear and new ones can't be found, productivity will grow; the overall pie will get bigger. Perhaps it won't matter if some people, even a lot of people don't have jobs. In Kelly's optimistic vision,

Everyone has personal workbots...at their beck and call. Imagine you run a small organic farm. Your fleet of worker bots do all the weeding, pest control, and harvesting of produce, as directed by an overseer bot, embodied by a mesh of probes in the soil. One day your task might be to research which variety of heirloom tomato to plant; the next day it might be to update your custom labels. The bots perform everything else that can be measured.

But there is a darker possibility, too, which is that some people will own workbots before other people do, and that the people who lack workbots won't be able to keep up with those to do. As Paul Krugman put it on Wednesday, "Smart machines may make higher G.D.P. possible, but also reduce the demand for people-including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots." If you are a subsistence farmer, there is no way that you will be able to compete with your neighbor who owns one. Personal workbots could, some day, be like cars or cell phones, ubiquitous tools that almost everyone could afford, but they could also be like factories, affording new wealth for the owners, while others are stuck with shovels and seeds. For centuries, it has always been the case that some new jobs are eliminated by technology, while others are created. It's hard to parse out exactly the role that technology has played, but as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee note in their superb recent book, " Race Against the Machine," over the last decade throughout the economy, there has been a drop in the employment-to-population ratio and a drop in median wages, and many of the people who lost jobs couldn't find new ones that paid as well as the ones that they lost.

Nobody knows for sure what will come next. As Kelly suggested to me in an e-mail, "the future of technology is easier to imagine than the future of humans." But there is no causal mechanism, physical, economic, sociological, or legal, that guarantees that new jobs will always come into existence. Adam Smith's invisible hand seems to offer the promise that (at least over the long haul) markets will set prices in rational ways. That doesn't mean, though, that there will always be remunerative, let alone satisfying work for human beings to do.

And as machines continue to get smarter, cheaper, and more effective, our options dwindle. Secretaries have been replaced by word processors and accountants by QuickBooks. As John Markoff explained last year, in an article entitled " Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software," blue-collar and white-collar jobs are both threatened. Even new-fangled information-economy jobs like I.T. departments are now endangered by systems like Amazon's back-end A.W.S. infrastructure, which provides one-stop cloud-based solutions where a team of on-site computer wizards were once needed. With advances in both hardware and software, the time between the invention of a job and its automated replacement is getting shorter.

Work need not be the be-all and end-all. As Oscar Wilde put it, if all-powerful machines were "the property of all, every one would benefit by it." Until then, the last bastion for human employment is likely to come from our cognitive strengths of flexibility and creativity, in finding new lines of work where computers replace old ones. Computers can create new things within an existing genre, but still struggle when it comes creating anything genuinely new, or even solving problems that that haven't been specifically programed for. Anything that can be automated will, but where we can create new things, there still may be a niche for us to fill.

It's not too early to start preparing for that future. Curricula that foster creativity-by developing children's intrinsic motivation for originality, encouraging their intellectual risk-taking and cultivating their metacognitive ability to self-reflect -might be a good place to start.

Gary Marcus, a professor at N.Y.U. and author of "Guitar Zero: The Science of Becoming Musical At Any Age," has written for newyorker.com about the facts and fictions of neuroscience, moral machines, Noam Chomsky, and what needs to be done to clean up science.

Photograph by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Slowly, but surely, robots (and virtual 'bots that exist only as software) are taking over our jobs; according to one back-of-the-envelope projection, in ninety years "70 percent of today's occupations will likewise be replaced by automation." Should we be worried? Kevin Kelly, "senior maverick" at Wired magazine, and source for the above guestimate, says we shouldn't.

# data[].attributes.body
Really interesting article about the importance of letting robot do our job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do?

It's hard to believe you'd have an economy at all if you gave pink slips to more than half the labor force. But that-in slow motion-is what the industrial revolution did to the workforce of the early 19th century. Two hundred years ago, 70 percent of American workers lived on the farm. Today automation has eliminated all but 1 percent of their jobs, replacing them (and their work animals) with machines. But the displaced workers did not sit idle. Instead, automation created hundreds of millions of jobs in entirely new fields. Those who once farmed were now manning the legions of factories that churned out farm equipment, cars, and other industrial products. Since then, wave upon wave of new occupations have arrived-appliance repairman, offset printer, food chemist, photographer, web designer-each building on previous automation. Today, the vast majority of us are doing jobs that no farmer from the 1800s could have imagined.

It may be hard to believe, but before the end of this century, 70 percent of today's occupations will likewise be replaced by automation. Yes, dear reader, even you will have your job taken away by machines. In other words, robot replacement is just a matter of time. This upheaval is being led by a second wave of automation, one that is centered on artificial cognition, cheap sensors, machine learning, and distributed smarts. This deep automation will touch all jobs, from manual labor to knowledge work.

First, machines will consolidate their gains in already-automated industries. After robots finish replacing assembly line workers, they will replace the workers in warehouses. Speedy bots able to lift 150 pounds all day long will retrieve boxes, sort them, and load them onto trucks. Fruit and vegetable picking will continue to be robotized until no humans pick outside of specialty farms. Pharmacies will feature a single pill-dispensing robot in the back while the pharmacists focus on patient consulting. Next, the more dexterous chores of cleaning in offices and schools will be taken over by late-night robots, starting with easy-to-do floors and windows and eventually getting to toilets. The highway legs of long-haul trucking routes will be driven by robots embedded in truck cabs.

All the while, robots will continue their migration into white-collar work. We already have artificial intelligence in many of our machines; we just don't call it that. Witness one piece of software by Narrative Science (profiled in issue 20.05) that can write newspaper stories about sports games directly from the games' stats or generate a synopsis of a company's stock performance each day from bits of text around the web. Any job dealing with reams of paperwork will be taken over by bots, including much of medicine. Even those areas of medicine not defined by paperwork, such as surgery, are becoming increasingly robotic. The rote tasks of any information-intensive job can be automated. It doesn't matter if you are a doctor, lawyer, architect, reporter, or even programmer: The robot takeover will be epic.

And it has already begun.

Here's why we're at the inflection point: Machines are acquiring smarts.

We have preconceptions about how an intelligent robot should look and act, and these can blind us to what is already happening around us. To demand that artificial intelligence be humanlike is the same flawed logic as demanding that artificial flying be birdlike, with flapping wings. Robots will think different. To see how far artificial intelligence has penetrated our lives, we need to shed the idea that they will be humanlike.

Consider Baxter, a revolutionary new workbot from Rethink Robotics. Designed by Rodney Brooks, the former MIT professor who invented the best-selling Roomba vacuum cleaner and its descendants, Baxter is an early example of a new class of industrial robots created to work alongside humans. Baxter does not look impressive. It's got big strong arms and a flatscreen display like many industrial bots. And Baxter's hands perform repetitive manual tasks, just as factory robots do. But it's different in three significant ways.

First, it can look around and indicate where it is looking by shifting the cartoon eyes on its head. It can perceive humans working near it and avoid injuring them. And workers can see whether it sees them. Previous industrial robots couldn't do this, which means that working robots have to be physically segregated from humans. The typical factory robot is imprisoned within a chain-link fence or caged in a glass case. They are simply too dangerous to be around, because they are oblivious to others. This isolation prevents such robots from working in a small shop, where isolation is not practical. Optimally, workers should be able to get materials to and from the robot or to tweak its controls by hand throughout the workday; isolation makes that difficult. Baxter, however, is aware. Using force-feedback technology to feel if it is colliding with a person or another bot, it is courteous. You can plug it into a wall socket in your garage and easily work right next to it.

Second, anyone can train Baxter. It is not as fast, strong, or precise as other industrial robots, but it is smarter. To train the bot you simply grab its arms and guide them in the correct motions and sequence. It's a kind of "watch me do this" routine. Baxter learns the procedure and then repeats it. Any worker is capable of this show-and-tell; you don't even have to be literate. Previous workbots required highly educated engineers and crack programmers to write thousands of lines of code (and then debug them) in order to instruct the robot in the simplest change of task. The code has to be loaded in batch mode, i.e., in large, infrequent batches, because the robot cannot be reprogrammed while it is being used. Turns out the real cost of the typical industrial robot is not its hardware but its operation. Industrial robots cost $100,000-plus to purchase but can require four times that amount over a lifespan to program, train, and maintain. The costs pile up until the average lifetime bill for an industrial robot is half a million dollars or more.

The third difference, then, is that Baxter is cheap. Priced at $22,000, it's in a different league compared with the $500,000 total bill of its predecessors. It is as if those established robots, with their batch-mode programming, are the mainframe computers of the robot world, and Baxter is the first PC robot. It is likely to be dismissed as a hobbyist toy, missing key features like sub-millimeter precision, and not serious enough. But as with the PC, and unlike the mainframe, the user can interact with it directly, immediately, without waiting for experts to mediate-and use it for nonserious, even frivolous things. It's cheap enough that small-time manufacturers can afford one to package up their wares or custom paint their product or run their 3-D printing machine. Or you could staff up a factory that makes iPhones.

Baxter was invented in a century-old brick building near the Charles River in Boston. In 1895 the building was a manufacturing marvel in the very center of the new manufacturing world. It even generated its own electricity. For a hundred years the factories inside its walls changed the world around us. Now the capabilities of Baxter and the approaching cascade of superior robot workers spur Brooks to speculate on how these robots will shift manufacturing in a disruption greater than the last revolution. Looking out his office window at the former industrial neighborhood, he says, "Right now we think of manufacturing as happening in China. But as manufacturing costs sink because of robots, the costs of transportation become a far greater factor than the cost of production. Nearby will be cheap. So we'll get this network of locally franchised factories, where most things will be made within 5 miles of where they are needed."

That may be true of making stuff, but a lot of jobs left in the world for humans are service jobs. I ask Brooks to walk with me through a local McDonald's and point out the jobs that his kind of robots can replace. He demurs and suggests it might be 30 years before robots will cook for us. "In a fast food place you're not doing the same task very long. You're always changing things on the fly, so you need special solutions. We are not trying to sell a specific solution. We are building a general-purpose machine that other workers can set up themselves and work alongside." And once we can cowork with robots right next to us, it's inevitable that our tasks will bleed together, and soon our old work will become theirs-and our new work will become something we can hardly imagine.

To understand how robot replacement will happen, it's useful to break down our relationship with robots into four categories, as summed up in this chart:

The rows indicate whether robots will take over existing jobs or make new ones, and the columns indicate whether these jobs seem (at first) like jobs for humans or for machines.

Let's begin with quadrant A: jobs humans can do but robots can do even better. Humans can weave cotton cloth with great effort, but automated looms make perfect cloth, by the mile, for a few cents. The only reason to buy handmade cloth today is because you want the imperfections humans introduce. We no longer value irregularities while traveling 70 miles per hour, though-so the fewer humans who touch our car as it is being made, the better.

And yet for more complicated chores, we still tend to believe computers and robots can't be trusted. That's why we've been slow to acknowledge how they've mastered some conceptual routines, in some cases even surpassing their mastery of physical routines. A computerized brain known as the autopilot can fly a 787 jet unaided, but irrationally we place human pilots in the cockpit to babysit the autopilot "just in case." In the 1990s, computerized mortgage appraisals replaced human appraisers wholesale. Much tax preparation has gone to computers, as well as routine x-ray analysis and pretrial evidence-gathering-all once done by highly paid smart people. We've accepted utter reliability in robot manufacturing; soon we'll accept it in robotic intelligence and service.

Next is quadrant B: jobs that humans can't do but robots can. A trivial example: Humans have trouble making a single brass screw unassisted, but automation can produce a thousand exact ones per hour. Without automation, we could not make a single computer chip-a job that requires degrees of precision, control, and unwavering attention that our animal bodies don't possess. Likewise no human, indeed no group of humans, no matter their education, can quickly search through all the web pages in the world to uncover the one page revealing the price of eggs in Katmandu yesterday. Every time you click on the search button you are employing a robot to do something we as a species are unable to do alone.

While the displacement of formerly human jobs gets all the headlines, the greatest benefits bestowed by robots and automation come from their occupation of jobs we are unable to do. We don't have the attention span to inspect every square millimeter of every CAT scan looking for cancer cells. We don't have the millisecond reflexes needed to inflate molten glass into the shape of a bottle. We don't have an infallible memory to keep track of every pitch in Major League Baseball and calculate the probability of the next pitch in real time.

We aren't giving "good jobs" to robots. Most of the time we are giving them jobs we could never do. Without them, these jobs would remain undone.

Now let's consider quadrant C, the new jobs created by automation-including the jobs that we did not know we wanted done. This is the greatest genius of the robot takeover: With the assistance of robots and computerized intelligence, we already can do things we never imagined doing 150 years ago. We can remove a tumor in our gut through our navel, make a talking-picture video of our wedding, drive a cart on Mars, print a pattern on fabric that a friend mailed to us through the air. We are doing, and are sometimes paid for doing, a million new activities that would have dazzled and shocked the farmers of 1850. These new accomplishments are not merely chores that were difficult before. Rather they are dreams that are created chiefly by the capabilities of the machines that can do them. They are jobs the machines make up.

Before we invented automobiles, air-conditioning, flatscreen video displays, and animated cartoons, no one living in ancient Rome wished they could watch cartoons while riding to Athens in climate-controlled comfort. Two hundred years ago not a single citizen of Shanghai would have told you that they would buy a tiny slab that allowed them to talk to faraway friends before they would buy indoor plumbing. Crafty AIs embedded in first-person-shooter games have given millions of teenage boys the urge, the need, to become professional game designers-a dream that no boy in Victorian times ever had. In a very real way our inventions assign us our jobs. Each successful bit of automation generates new occupations-occupations we would not have fantasized about without the prompting of the automation.

To reiterate, the bulk of new tasks created by automation are tasks only other automation can handle. Now that we have search engines like Google, we set the servant upon a thousand new errands. Google, can you tell me where my phone is? Google, can you match the people suffering depression with the doctors selling pills? Google, can you predict when the next viral epidemic will erupt? Technology is indiscriminate this way, piling up possibilities and options for both humans and machines.

It is a safe bet that the highest-earning professions in the year 2050 will depend on automations and machines that have not been invented yet. That is, we can't see these jobs from here, because we can't yet see the machines and technologies that will make them possible. Robots create jobs that we did not even know we wanted done.

Finally, that leaves us with quadrant D, the jobs that only humans can do-at first. The one thing humans can do that robots can't (at least for a long while) is to decide what it is that humans want to do. This is not a trivial trick; our desires are inspired by our previous inventions, making this a circular question.

When robots and automation do our most basic work, making it relatively easy for us to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, then we are free to ask, "What are humans for?" Industrialization did more than just extend the average human lifespan. It led a greater percentage of the population to decide that humans were meant to be ballerinas, full-time musicians, mathematicians, athletes, fashion designers, yoga masters, fan-fiction authors, and folks with one-of-a kind titles on their business cards. With the help of our machines, we could take up these roles; but of course, over time, the machines will do these as well. We'll then be empowered to dream up yet more answers to the question "What should we do?" It will be many generations before a robot can answer that.

This postindustrial economy will keep expanding, even though most of the work is done by bots, because part of your task tomorrow will be to find, make, and complete new things to do, new things that will later become repetitive jobs for the robots. In the coming years robot-driven cars and trucks will become ubiquitous; this automation will spawn the new human occupation of trip optimizer, a person who tweaks the traffic system for optimal energy and time usage. Routine robo-surgery will necessitate the new skills of keeping machines sterile. When automatic self-tracking of all your activities becomes the normal thing to do, a new breed of professional analysts will arise to help you make sense of the data. And of course we will need a whole army of robot nannies, dedicated to keeping your personal bots up and running. Each of these new vocations will in turn be taken over by robots later.

The real revolution erupts when everyone has personal workbots, the descendants of Baxter, at their beck and call. Imagine you run a small organic farm. Your fleet of worker bots do all the weeding, pest control, and harvesting of produce, as directed by an overseer bot, embodied by a mesh of probes in the soil. One day your task might be to research which variety of heirloom tomato to plant; the next day it might be to update your custom labels. The bots perform everything else that can be measured.

Right now it seems unthinkable: We can't imagine a bot that can assemble a stack of ingredients into a gift or manufacture spare parts for our lawn mower or fabricate materials for our new kitchen. We can't imagine our nephews and nieces running a dozen workbots in their garage, churning out inverters for their friend's electric-vehicle startup. We can't imagine our children becoming appliance designers, making custom batches of liquid-nitrogen dessert machines to sell to the millionaires in China. But that's what personal robot automation will enable.

Everyone will have access to a personal robot, but simply owning one will not guarantee success. Rather, success will go to those who innovate in the organization, optimization, and customization of the process of getting work done with bots and machines. Geographical clusters of production will matter, not for any differential in labor costs but because of the differential in human expertise. It's human-robot symbiosis. Our human assignment will be to keep making jobs for robots-and that is a task that will never be finished. So we will always have at least that one "job."

In the coming years our relationships with robots will become ever more complex. But already a recurring pattern is emerging. No matter what your current job or your salary, you will progress through these Seven Stages of Robot Replacement, again and again:

7. I am so glad a robot/computer cannot possibly do what I do now.

This is not a race against the machines. If we race against them, we lose. This is a race with the machines. You'll be paid in the future based on how well you work with robots. Ninety percent of your coworkers will be unseen machines. Most of what you do will not be possible without them. And there will be a blurry line between what you do and what they do. You might no longer think of it as a job, at least at first, because anything that seems like drudgery will be done by robots.

We need to let robots take over. They will do jobs we have been doing, and do them much better than we can. They will do jobs we can't do at all. They will do jobs we never imagined even needed to be done. And they will help us discover new jobs for ourselves, new tasks that expand who we are. They will let us focus on becoming more human than we were.

Let the robots take the jobs, and let them help us dream up new work that matters.

Kevin Kelly ( kk.org) is senior maverick of Wired and the author, most recently, of What Technology Wants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better Than Human: Why Robots Will - And Must - Take Our Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do? It's hard to believe you'd have an economy at all if you gave pink slips to more than half the labor force. But that-in slow motion-is what the industrial revolution did to the workforce of the early 19th century.

# data[].attributes.body
Because it is expensive for a human to go in space they find an alternative. Not yet with a human shape but still very usefull.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA Tests Helper Robots Inspired By Star Wars And Powered By Android

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The problem with space exploration by humans is that we are incredibly expensive to put into orbit. We're heavy, we demand very particular environmental conditions (warmth, air, water, food) and you have to budget for a return trip. Meanwhile, robots keep getting smaller and cheaper and more capable.

# data[].attributes.body
Worldwild researcher try to develop prototype of robot/android. Right now they can't make them be like in fiction but they are trying really hard in order to make the ficton come true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
3. The JST ERATO Asada project and Osaka University have built a child-sized android called CB2 (Child robot with biometric body). It is 130 cm. tall, weighs 33 Kg., and has 56 DOF. It has cameras for eyes and microphones for ears. It also has 197 tactile sensors embedded in the silicone skin.

# data[].attributes.body
We usually use the term robot instead of androïd because we are not yet accustom to the idea of androd living among us

# data[].attributes.body
To show that its chocolat can even move an androïd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Jérôme Pitorin & Ghislain de Haut de Sigy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nestle Grand Chocolat, strong in sensations... Advertising Agency: JWT Paris, France http://www.jwt.com/paris | http://www.facebook.com/jwtparis Executive Creative Director: Ghislain de Villoutreys Art Director: Laurent Salles Copywriter: Thierry Brioul TV Producer: Charlotte Saint-Paul Post-Production: Jean-Gabriel Saint-Paul Director: Chris Delaporte Production: Why us?

# data[].attributes.headline
Past exposition : "Et l'homme créa le robot"

# data[].attributes.subject
Past exposition : "Et l'homme créa le robot"

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of this exposition was to show every technology improvment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ils sont partout dans nos vies quotidiennes, intégrés dans des machines à l'intelligence artificielle..., de l'ordinateur au métro automatique.

D'abord cantonnés à la sphère industrielle, ils ont peu à peu investi des domaines comme la recherche spatiale, les explorations sous-marines, la révolution médicale... jusqu'à les retrouver désormais dans nos salons sous la forme d'un aspirateur robot ou d'un robot d'assistance pour des personnes en grande difficulté ! Des premières tentatives de fabrication d'organismes artificiels aux humanoïdes de demain, histoire de ces machines fascinantes qui génèrent des sentiments variés, de l'engouement (comme au Japon) à la crainte d'être dépassés par la robotique (comme en Europe).

Jusqu'à quel point peut-on reproduire l'homme ? Peut-on équiper le robot de capacités sensorielles, émotionnelles, cognitives ? Quelle place doit-on donner à ces compagnons du futur ? Autant de questions sociale, technique, morale et éthique qui ont cheminé dans l'histoire des robots !

Avec Girolamo Ramunni , professeur des universités, professeur au CNAM, conseiller scientifique au Comité pour l'histoire du CNRS et commissaire de l'exposition " Et l'homme créa le robot au CNAM du 23 octobre au 1er mars 2013 et Laurence Devillers , LIMSI-CNRS, Professeur en Informatique à Paris Sorbonne 4.

En seconde partie nous retrouverons la carte blanche de Catherine de Coppet , comme tous les 4e jeudi du mois...pour une découverte annoncée par l'Observatoire européen austral, l' ESO, fin août dernier : on a trouvé du sucre dans l'espace ! Et cette découverte pourrait bien faire progresser les recherches actuelles concernant l'apparition de la vie sur Terre...pour nous en parler elle sera en compagnie d' Alain Omont , directeur de recherche à l'Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris ( IAP).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ils sont partout dans nos vies quotidiennes, intégrés dans des machines à l'intelligence artificielle..., de l'ordinateur au métro automatique. D'abord cantonnés à la sphère industrielle, ils ont peu à peu investi des domaines comme la recherche spatiale, les explorations sous-marines, la révolution médicale...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a room full of media heavyweights, CEOs, and high-tech entrepreneurs, the debate is hardly philosophical. "Will Robots overtake Humans?" and in some cases should they? The Monaco Media Forum was the site of the showdown, and the panel was an esteemed group of thinkers and digital leaders. Bonin Bough is the VP Global Media & Consumer Engagement, Mondelēz International, and moderated the conversation. Adam Singolda is Founder & CEO, Taboola a leading algorytmic video recommendation technology. Patrice Slupowski is VP, Digital Innovation & Communities, NExT.com, Orange, the French based telco. And then there was me, a passionate advocate for human curation - both as the author of Curation Nation, and the CEO of Magnify.net.

There are jobs that are dangerous or repetitive, and these jobs are ideal to be replaced by robots. So, for example, The ATM - I think of them as bank teller robots. And I love having those robots at every corner bodega. Or the ticket machine at the train station or the movie theatre. Those robots add value. But then I think about the 'tweet bot' - a robot that responds to me when I follow someone on Twitter. When I get a response to a tweet that says "Thanks for following me", I find that I can't tell if that's a real human response or a robotics that mimics, even impersonates, a human.

Here Bonin Bough jumps and and shares a story about the moral dilemma of where we should draw the line. He points to a site called "Weavers" that builds automated Twitter characters that take on a life of their own - and begin to roam around the twitterverse. As these Weaver twitter-bots begin to take on a personality, they take on a larger role in the twitterverse overwhelming the humans that power the web.

Here I propose a new rule of robotics. That going forward Robots must identify themselves as robots - and can't impersonate being a human being.

Why would anyone want a robot to replace humans? It may be a right brain, left brain conflict. Automation makes things more efficient, more the same, more boring. But humans tends to make things that aren't exactly the same. The nature of human creation is that it isn't algorithmic, but it, in fact, will have connections and relationships that are both logical and illogical.

The danger of allowing robots to do the work of humans is that they are getting close enough that people will start to accept almost 'good enough' content created by robots. So, for example, take a look at Jason Hirschhorn's daily newsletter Media ReDefined. My theory is that an algorithm could try to replace Jason's formula, but it would miss the 20% of the newsletter when he adds a link to an off-center phenomenon, or a music video from the band Joy Division. The human element of Media ReDefined is what makes it fun, surprising, and engaging. A robot can't do that.

The shift that changes the equation is the sheer volume of content flooding the web. Digital overload is swamping the current recommendation engines, making the sharp knife of human editorial a better filter than the blunt instrument of algorithmic recommendation. So while an algorithm might be able to sort out a collection of quality content like feature films, or music released by a label, or books distributed by a publisher, the shear volume of self-published books, or self-recorded music, makes the algorithmic approach less and less successful.

The coming shift may not be toward, or away from robots. As the believers in the philosophy known as The Singularity suggest, we're approaching a time when robots and humans find common ground. The year this event will happen is 2029, just around the corner. And inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil says the day is already fortold. Kurzweil is generally recognized as a public advocate for the futurist and transhumanist movements - and sees the merging of humans and technology as inevitable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

For Bonin Bough the question today is: "Where does humanity begin and robotics end? Machine Learning, Robotics - is all the same thing. As we move closer to symbiotic relationship - what are their places in our understanding of humanity."

For the foreseeable future - the question of where humans and robots share joint custody of the future remains unclear. But until then, having robots not impersonate people seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

(if you like, you can watch the video of the Monaco Media Forum panel HERE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a room full of media heavyweights, CEOs, and high-tech entrepreneurs, the debate is hardly philosophical. "Will Robots overtake Humans?" and in some cases should they? The Monaco Media Forum was the site of the showdown, and the panel was an esteemed group of thinkers and digital leaders. Bonin Bough [...]

# data[].attributes.body
As the movie "AI" what are our bounderies,if we start creating robots and want them to look just like us = androïds ? Are we going to create children for those who can't or loose one ?
I recommend : AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human prostitutes could be a thing of the past by 2050, as more and more robots get pimped into prostitution.

That's the future envisioned by Michelle Mars and Ian Yeoman at Victoria University of Wellington, who have released a report suggesting that lifelike robots will be coming to a brothel near you.

Mars and Yeoman see lots of advantages to having "hoe-bots" doing the dirty work instead of humans, such as "commercial sex robots would be free of disease and would reduce the trafficking of real people," they told The Week.

Despite the fact that these hard-wired whores will suck up electricity as opposed to, er, never mind, the raunchy robot researchers say the idea isn't that shocking.

"Sex robots are absolutely inevitable. In fact, they already exist," Mars told Business Insider. "Society has had relationships with machines and we continue to have increasingly intimate relationships with more and more sophisticated technologies."

For instance, there is "Roxxxy," an interactive doll costing between $7,000 to $9,000 that was unveiled at an adult entertainment expo in 2010, and, according to MSNBC.com, can be programmed with different personalities such as frigid Farrah and wild Wendy.

If you're the type of person who can't get used to the idea of getting kinky with an android, don't worry: There will still be human sex workers as well.

"Human prostitution will still be around. It's the oldest profession and won't be thwarted by robot alternatives," Mars told MSNBC.com. "It's just that high-quality alternatives where the robots are indistinguishable from humans will cut down the profitability of human exploitation."

However, some tech writers such as Lauren Davis believes there are some questions that need to be answered before "ho-bots" become as common as smartphones.

"Would sex robots ... diminish the demand for human sex tourism enough to negatively impact the economies of certain regions? Or would human sex tourism in those regions explode as robotic prostitutes came to displace human ones in places that could afford the robots?" she wrote on iOP.com. "If human sex tourism did somehow become an economic impossibility, how might the economies of those regions shift and change?"

Christian Bryant of Mashable.com also sees some potential downsides, such as weird R2D2 noises during sex and waiting for software updates and one definite upside.

"Technically, this won't be cheating, right?" he asked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HO-BOTS: Robot Prostitutes A Reality By 2050

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human prostitutes could be a thing of the past by 2050, as more and more robots get pimped into prostitution. That's the future envisioned by Michelle Mars and Ian Yeoman at Victoria University of Wellington, who have released a report suggesting that lifelike robots will be coming to a brothel near you.

# data[].attributes.body
The improvment of technology lead us to an incredible industrial development. Indeed since the creation of the steam locomotive, we never stop our research in order to develop the industry. The world changed a lot bringing with it a lot of melioration such as in the medicin field or the improvement of the daily file; but also negative aspect as unemployment. We need do find a perfect balance if we want it to work.