Is the pursuit of making robots indefinitely close to humans fundamentally misguided? Should we be focusing more on human-robot collaboration rather than replacement?

Should Robots Be 'Humans' or 'Tools'? It Might Not Be a Single-Choice Question

Hello, I find this question particularly interesting because it touches upon many people's hopes and anxieties about the future. Let's approach it from a different angle and break it down.

Why Do We Go to Such Lengths to Make Robots 'Human-like'?

Many people's first reaction upon seeing a humanoid robot is, "They're coming to replace us!" This concern is understandable, but in reality, making robots humanoid is often driven by very practical considerations, mainly three points:

1. Adapting to Our World: Think about it, everything around us—doorknobs, stairs, cars, tools—is designed for the human body structure. Instead of redesigning the entire world to accommodate oddly shaped robots, it's more efficient for robots to adapt to our world. Creating a 'human-shaped' robot is like crafting the perfect key for the lock that is our 'human world.' It can directly open doors, climb stairs, and use our tools, offering the highest cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

2. Natural Human Interaction: In many service scenarios, such as caring for the elderly, accompanying children, or acting as a tour guide, a robot with human form and expressions is more readily accepted by us. We instinctively interact with it in the same way we communicate with people, which is far more natural than talking to a cold robotic arm or a box. It can nod, wave, or even show a 'puzzled' expression; this type of interaction is hardwired into our genes.

3. Exploring Ultimate Technology: Creating robots that are infinitely close to humans is, in itself, a 'moonshot' level scientific challenge. It pushes scientists to achieve breakthroughs in all fields, including materials, energy, control algorithms, and artificial intelligence. This process alone can spawn countless new technologies, just as the efforts to build the atomic bomb and send humans into space spurred the development of computer science and modern materials science.

Therefore, the pursuit of 'human-likeness' is more about functionality and compatibility, rather than genuinely creating a 'new species' to compete with us.

Replacement or Collaboration? It's Actually 'Division of Labor'

Now, let's discuss the more central issue: replacement vs. collaboration.

I believe this is more akin to a societal-level 'reallocation of work.'

• Some jobs should indeed be replaced: These are the repetitive, tedious, and dangerous (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous) tasks, such as welding in toxic environments, digging in mines hundreds of meters deep, or tightening tens of thousands of screws day after day. Having robots perform these tasks, thereby freeing up humans, is undoubtedly a step forward. This is similar to how the invention of the washing machine liberated people from the arduous labor of hand-washing clothes.

• Most jobs are moving towards 'human-robot collaboration': This is the mainstream trend for the future. Robots won't become your colleagues; instead, they will become your 'super tools.'

  • Just like a surgeon, who won't be replaced by a surgical robot, but rather, by operating the robot, their hands become steadier, their vision clearer, enabling them to perform minimally invasive surgeries that were previously impossible. The robot is an extension of the surgeon's capabilities.
  • Similarly, a designer won't be replaced by AI drawing tools; instead, they'll use AI to quickly generate hundreds of design drafts, then select, modify, and refine them, focusing their energy on creativity and aesthetics. AI is an amplifier of the designer's inspiration.
  • And a warehouse manager won't need to manually move hundreds of pounds of boxes; instead, they'll wear an exoskeleton robot or direct an automated forklift to do the work. The robot is an enhancer of the manager's physical strength.

In a collaborative model, humans are responsible for what robots are least adept at: strategic decision-making, complex communication, emotional empathy, aesthetic creation, and ethical judgment. Robots, on the other hand, handle what humans are not good at: massive data computation, ultra-high precision operations, and tireless repetitive labor.

Conclusion: The Direction Isn't Wrong, But Vigilance is Needed

Overall, I believe the effort to make robots infinitely close to humans is not misguided, as it seeks optimal solutions for specific problems (environmental adaptation, natural interaction).

Furthermore, 'human-robot collaboration' is not an option opposed to 'replacement'; rather, it, along with 'good replacement' (replacing dangerous and tedious work), forms the two legs of robotic technology's development. The ultimate goal is to enhance overall human capabilities and improve our lives.

Of course, this doesn't mean we can rest easy. We need to establish sound rules and laws to ensure that the benefits of technological development are shared fairly across society, rather than exacerbating wealth inequality. We also need to consider how to educate the next generation to equip them with the skills to collaborate with intelligent machines.

Instead of worrying about whether robots will become 'humans,' we should focus more on how to utilize these powerful new tools to make ourselves 'better' humans.