Let us reflect on the state of robotics. This year marks the $101$-st anniversary of R.U.R., a play by the writer Karel \v{C}apek, often credited with introducing the word "robot". The word used to refer to feudal forced labourers in Slavic languages. Indeed, it points to one key characteristic of robotic systems: they are mere slaves, have no rights, and execute our wills instruction by instruction, without asking anything in return. The relationship with us humans is commensalism; in biology, commensalism subsists between two symbiotic species when one species benefits from it (robots boost productivity for humans), while the other species neither benefits nor is harmed (can you really argue that robots benefit from simply functioning?). We then distinguish robots from "living machines", that is, machines infused with life. If living machines should ever become a reality, we would need to shift our relationship with them from commensalism to mutualism. The distinction is not subtle: we experience it every day with domesticated animals, that exchange serfdom for forage and protection. This is because life has evolved to resist any attempt at enslaving it; it is stubborn. In the path towards living machines, let us ask: what has been achieved by robotics in the last $100$ years? What is left to accomplish in the next $100$ years? For us, the answers boil down to three words: juice, need (or death), and embodiment, as we shall see in the following.
翻译:让我们反思机器人的状况。 今年是作家Karel \ v{C}C}pek的戏剧《R.U.R.R.》的1001美元周年纪念,经常以“robot”一词来表彰。用这个词来指向斯拉夫语中的封建强迫劳工。事实上,它指向机器人系统的一个关键特征:它们只是奴隶,没有权利,并且通过教学执行我们的意志指令,而没有要求任何回报。与我们的关系是共产主义;在生物学中,共产主义在两种共生物种之间,当一个物种从中受益(机器人提高人类的生产力),而其他物种既无益又无害(你能说机器人从简单的功能中受益吗? )。 然后,我们把机器人和“活机器”区分开来,那就是:它们只是奴隶,没有权利,没有要求执行我们的意志。如果生活机器成为现实,我们就需要把我们和他们的关系从共产主义转变为相互主义。 区别并不微妙:我们每天都要与家畜生活在一起,我们生活,每天都要经历着一种共产主义(机器人能提高人类的生产力),而要努力去改变它。