Kate Darling

Some people still are, and there's a lot to be learned from that academically, et cetera.

But that's not where we've ended up.

AI doesn't think like people.

We wind up in this fallacy where we're comparing these two.

And when we talk about what intelligence even is, we're often comparing to our own intelligence.

And then the second reason this bothers me is because it doesn't make sense

I just think it's boring to recreate intelligence that we already have.

I see the scientific value of understanding our own intelligence, but from a practical, what could we use these technologies for perspective, it's much more interesting to create something new, to create a skill set that we don't have that we can partner with in what we're trying to achieve.

That's what people argue, yes.

And I think that's true.

So the two arguments for humanoid robots are people need to be able to communicate and relate to robots, and we relate most to things that are like ourselves.

And we have a world that's built for humans.

So we have stairs and narrow passageways and door handles.

And so we need humanoid robots to be able to navigate that.

And so you're speaking to the first one, which is absolutely true.

But what we know from social robotics and a lot of human-robot interaction research is that all you need is something that's enough like...

a person to, for it to give off cues that someone relates to.

And that, but that doesn't have to look human or even act human.

You can take a robot like R2D2 and it just like beeps and boops and people love R2D2, right?

Even though it's just like a trash can on wheels and they like R2D2 more than C3PO, who's a humanoid.