Robots and Other Cognitive Systems: Challenges and European Responses

Abstract

Robots have come a long way since the Czech writer Karel Capek first used this term, some 90 years ago, to denote rather frightening creatures—not unlike Golems or Frankenstein's monster, yet workers all the same. Today, more than ever, robots continue to fascinate: they take over activities which humans find too dangerous or impossible. For example, the recent use of robots at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant or in the recovery of the flight recorder of Air France's Rio de Janeiro– Paris flight which went down in deep seas in 2009. They go to war and deactivate mines. And they increasingly come into our homes as children's toys, almost like family pets! In just a few years, technological progress in this area has been tremendous and Europe is one of the leaders in this research and industrial application. Yet, this is just the beginning of the robot history as many challenges remain to be addressed. Refining and improving the mechanics of robots and their sensorial capacities (including ones that living organisms do not possess) has always been of major concern for engineers. Reducing the amount of human intervention in the operation of these machines has been another persistent trend, leading for instance to numerically controlled machine tools. Ultimately, however, this means more than merely automating the completion of a task according to some preset rules. It means that, within certain limits, machines ought to be able to take “decisions” autonomously and independent of external (e.g., remote) control on how to proceed with a given task should new conditions arise unexpectedly. This could be in the form of a roving robot that is supposed to retrieve some object from a distant place but on its way encounters an unexpected obstacle. The ease of use, safety, and partial autonomy are essential if robotic devices are to leave the shop floor and strictly controlled environments and become truly useful Philos. Technol. (2011) 24:355–357 DOI 10.1007/s13347-011-0037-4