TECHNICAL REPORT

ON

Robots of yesterday, today and

tomorrow; the social and technical
aspects of their rise.

May
2021

2
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

ii
Robots of yesterday, today and
tomorrow ; the social and
technical aspects of their rise.

ii
SUMMARY

This is a research work that discuss extensively about the

life cycle of robotic world and how artificial intelligence
gains influence. It contains different opinions of scholars
and how they view the future of robotic world. This
material is not solely based on the writer opinion but on the
opinions of many scholars which they has been recognized
in the reference section of this book.

ii
CONTENTS

1.
SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................
...............................................iv
2. CONTENTS ................................................................................................................
v
2H. ABBREVIATIONS AND
ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................vii
3. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
Definitions of 'robot' and 'robotics'
Connections between robotics and other subjects
4. ROBOTICS OF YESTERDAY ..................................................................................1
1.1 Origin of their existence
1.2 The social and technical aspects of their rise
5. ROBOTICS OF TODAY.............................................................................................3
2.1 Today's social and industrial robots
6. ROBOTICS OF TOMORROW....................................................................................5
3.1 Automation adoption
3.2 Life like robots
3.3 Rescue robots
3.4 Robotics competition
7. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 8
8. REFERENCE ................................................................................................................................................. 8

1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGVs. Automatically Guided Vehicles

BRA British Robot Association

IRA Industrial Robot Association

RIA Robot Institute of America

AI Artificial intelligence

cHRI Cognitive and social Human-Robot Interaction

pHRI Physical Human-Robot Interaction

AMRs Autonomous Mobile Robots

ATRs All Terrain Robots

2
INTRODUCTION
Robotics is a subject without sharp boundaries: at various points on its
periphery it merges into fields such as artificial intelligence, automation and
remote control, so it is hard to define it concisely. It is the branch of
engineering whose subject is, obviously, robots, but there is no universal
agreement on what constitutes a robot, although many definitions have
been proposed, some of which are given later. The boundaries of robotics
are not only vague but shifting. Robots are evolving quickly, and our ideas
with them, so that we expect more and more intelligence from machines. A
machine which at one time is regarded as a robot may in a few years come to
be thought too primitive or inflexible to merit the name. But if some
machines are leaving the domain of Robotics, others are entering, as it
becomes possible to automate more tasks so that, for example, it becomes
reasonable to envisage autonomous mobile robots travelling and working in
the country unattended for long periods. Also, it may be argued that the
boundaries of robotics are subject to changes of fashion: at the time of
writing robots and so-called 'high-tech' devices generally are prominent in
the news media and have value as commercial symbols, and so almost any
piece of domestic hardware may be heraldedas robotic by its advertisers.
Given this fluid situation it is unwise to insist on a rigid definition of 'robot'
or 'robotics', but the following list of characteristics seems to be essential for
a true robot.
1) A robot must be produced by manufacture rather than by biology. (This
does not rule out the eventual use of artificial biochemically produced
structures such as muscles.)
2) It must be able to move physical objects or be mobile itself (This excludes
simulations and control systems for static plant.)
3) It must be a power or force source or amplifier. (This excludes those
teleoperated arms which merely replicate an operator's hand movements by a
mechanical linkage. Nevertheless, teleoperators in general are a legitimate
subject for robotics: a comprehensive treatment must sometimes stray
beyond the bounds of a purist's definition.)

3
Definitions of 'robot' and 'robotics'
The term 'robotics' was coined by Isaac Asimov in about 1940. Because
of its origin in science fiction it is only slowly becoming a respectable word,
and it is not found even in some good recent dictionaries. (,Roboticist'
will probably take even longer.) Respectable or not, these words describe
a coherent discipline and its practitioners, and will not go away. The origin
of the word 'robot' around 1917 with Karel Capek is described in many
books on robots; a brief but adequate account is given elsewhere (see
bibliographic notes)

Other definitions in robotics

The term manipulator is used here to mean any device with an arm bearing
a hand or gripper; thus it includes both industrial robots and
telemanipulators. An industrial robot is a manipulator which automatically
repeats a cycle of operations under program control. The identification
of 'industrial robot' with programmed manipulator is unfortunate since
other machines such as automatically guided vehicles (AGVs) are really
also industrial robots. This identification may become weaker in time, but
for now the term industrial robot must be assumed to refer to a programmed
manipulator if no contrary indication is given. The official definitions of
robot issued by the national robotics associations such as the British Robot
Association (BRA) and the Japanese Industrial Robot Association (IRA) are
mostly of industrial robots in this sense. An example is that of the Robot
Institute of America (RIA):
A robot is a reprogrammable and multifunctional manipulator, devised for
the transport of materials, parts, tools or specialized systems, with varied and
programmed movements, with the aim of carrying out varied tasks.
These organizations usually classify robots into four or more classes and
sometimes into generations. There is little agreement about these classes,
and in particular on whether pick and place machines and
telemanipulatorscount as robots. A telemanipulator is a manipulator whose
actions are remotely controlled by a human operator, sometimes by
mechanically replicating his hand movements and sometimes by obeying
pushbuttons or joystick controls. Such a manipulator is often called a
teleoperator, but in the view of Vertut and Coiffet a teleoperator, although it
can be just a telemanipulator, more generally refers to a system of which a
telemanipulator is merely a part, being moved about by some kind of
transporter or vehicle.
An alternative term for teleoperator is telechir, coined, along with the
associated subject name telechirics, by M.W. Thring as preferable because

4
both halves are the same language: Greek for 'distant' and 'hand'. (He
also invented the term 'sceptrology', meaning the technology of mechanical
aids for the disabled.)
For completeness some terms are defined which, while not relevant to
robotics as a practical subject at present, tend to be associated with robots,
particularly in fiction and speculation about the future. An android is an, as
yet imaginary, robot of human appearance and physical abilities. There is no
agreement on whether an android must be built from engineering materials
or grown in some biochemical way.
A cyborg is a being part machine and part biological. One would not wish to
argue that a person with artificial hip joints or heart valves is a cyborg,
which raises the question of how much has to be mechanically replaced
before a person counts as one. Cybernetics is the science of control systems
in engineering and biology; the word was invented by Norbert Wiener.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ROBOTICS AND SOME RELATED

SUBJECTS
1. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Artificial intelligence (AI) is dealt with in Chapter 2; for now it is sufficient
to make one or two general remarks. First, the boundaries of AI,
like those of robotics, are rather fluid, particularly where AI merges into
psychology and the other sciences of mind and brain in nature. Indeed,
robotics has been regarded by some as a branch of AI, but equally AI could
be said to be a subset of robotics, if robotics is interpreted liberally.
From a scientific or philosophical point of view the most interesting area
of the AI-robotics interaction lies in the possibilities for making robots
which are more like those of science fiction, i.e. mobile intelligent
autonomous agents. In terms of the practical robotics of today and the
immediate future, however, the relevance of AI is mainly that it provides, or
promises to provide, a number of useful techniques for enhancing
performance. The general theme of these is making robots

2. MACHINE LEARNING: machine learning is a specific subset of AI

that trains a machine how to learn. It is a branch of artificial intelligence
based on the idea that systems can learn from data, identify patterns and
make decisions with minimal human intervention. It was born from pattern
recognition and the theory that computers can learn without being
programmed to perform specific tasks; researchers interested in artificial
intelligence wanted to see if computers could learn from data. The iterative

5
aspect of machine learning is important because as models are exposed to
new data, they are able to independently adapt.
CHAPTER ONE

ROBOTICS OF YESTERDAY( ORIGIN AND THEIR

ADVANCEMENT )

Robots have fascinated people for thousands of years. Those automatons

that were built before the 20th century did not connect sensing to action but
rather operated through human agency or as repetitive machines. However,
by the 1920s electronics had gotten to the stage that the first true robots that
sensed the world and acted in it appropriately could be built. By 1950 we
started to see descriptions of real robots appearing in popular magazines. By
the 1960s industrial robots came onto the scene. Commercial pressures made
them less and less responsive to their environments but faster and faster in
what they did in their carefully engineered world. Then in the mid 1970s in
France, Japan, and the USA we started to see robots rising again in a handful
of research laboratories, and now we have arrived at a world-wide frenzy in
research and the beginnings of large-scale deployment of intelligent robots
throughout our world.

1.1 Origin of their Existence

Since the early civilizations, one of man’s greatest ambitions has been to create artifacts
in their image. The legend of the Titan Prometheus, who molded humankind from clay,
or that of the giant Talus, the bronze slave forged by Hephaestus (3500 BC), testify to
this quest in Greek mythology. The Egyptians’ oracle statues hiding priests inside (2500
BC) were perhaps the precursor of our modern thinking machines. The clepsydra water
clock introduced by the Babylonians (1400 BC) was one of the first automated
mechanical artifacts. In the following centuries, human creativity has given rise to a host
of devices such as the automaton theatre of Hero of Alexandria (100 AD), the hydro-
powered water-raising and humanoid machines of Al-Jazari (1200), and Leonardo da
Vinci’s numerous ingenious designs (1500). The development of automata continued to
flourish in the eighteen century both in Europe and Asia, with creations such as Jacquet-
Droz’s family of androids (drawer, musician and writer) and the “karakuri-ningyo”
mechanical dolls (tea server and archer). The robot “concept” was clearly established by
those many creative historical realizations. Nonetheless, the emergence of the “physical”
robot had to await the advent of its underlying technologies during the course of the
twentieth century. In 1920, the term robot –derived from “robota” which means
subordinate labour in Slav languages –was first introduced by the Czech playwright Karel
Capek in his play “Rossum’s Universal Robots (R.U.R.)”. In 1940, the ethics of the
interaction between robots and humans was envisioned to be governed by the well-known

6
three fundamental laws of Isaac Asimov, the Russian science-fiction writer in his novel
“Runaround”.

1.2 The social and technical aspects of their rise

The middle of the twentieth century brought the first explorations of the connection
between human intelligence and machines, marking the beginning of an era of fertile
research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Around that time, the first robots were
realized. They benefited from advances in the different technologies of mechanics,
controls, computers and electronics. As always, new designs motivate new research and
discoveries, which, in turn, lead to enhanced solutions and thus to novel concepts. This
virtuous circle over time produced that knowledge and understanding which gave birth to
the field of robotics, properly referred to as: the science and technology of robots. The
early robots built in the 1960s stemmed from the confluence of two technologies:
numerical control machines for precise manufacturing, and tele-operators for remote
radioactive material handling. These master slave arms were designed to duplicate one-
to-one the mechanics of the human arm, and had rudimental control and little perception
about the environment. Then, during the mid-to-late twentieth century, the development
of integrated circuits, digital computers and miniaturized components enabled computer-
controlled robots to be designed and programmed. These robots, termed industrial robots,
became essential components in the automation of flexible manufacturing systems in the
late 1970s. Further to their wide application in the automotive industry, industrial robots
were successfully employed in general industry, such as the metal products, the chemical,
the electronics and the food industries. More recently, robots have found new
applications outside the factories, in areas such as cleaning, search and rescue,
underwater, space, and medical applications. In the 1980s robotics was defined as the
science which studies the intelligent connection between perception and action.

7
 Fig. 1 Industrial and social Robots

With reference to this definition, the action of a robotic system is entrusted to a

locomotion apparatus to move in the environment (wheels, crawlers, legs, propellers)
and/or to a manipulation apparatus to operate on objects present in the environment
(arms, end effectors, artificial hands), where suitable actuators animate the mechanical
components of the robot. The perception is extracted from the sensors providing
information on state of the robot (position and speed) and its surrounding environment
(force and tactile, range and vision). The intelligent connection is entrusted to a
programming, planning and control architecture which relies on the perception and
available models of the robot and environment and exploits learning and skill acquisition.
In the 1990s research was boosted by the need to resort to robots to address human safety
in hazardous environments (field robotics), or to enhance the human operator ability and
reduce his/her fatigue (human augmentation), or else by the desire to develop products
with wide potential markets aimed at improving the quality of life (service robotics). A
common denominator of such application scenarios was the need to operate in a scarcely
structured environment which ultimately requires increased abilities and a higher degree
of autonomy.
By the late 18th century, although the natural sciences were already established,
automated machines with dubious talents were nevertheless accepted. A famous case is
the success of Wolfgang von Kempelen’s chess playing automaton, called the
‘Mechanical Turk’: their tour through Europe and the United States, performing for the
likes of Napoleon Bonaparte and Benjamin Franklin, is a brilliant example of society’s
mindset at this time. Only later it was detected that the machine was a fake that actually
housed a human chess master.

8
 The Nao Robot mimics human behaviour. Still today, many people are fascinated by
robots and automats and will credit them with physical and mental skills way beyond
their actual capabilities.

Fig. 1.2 The Nao robot mimics human behavior

Service robots employ assistive robotics to aid humans carry out physical tasks such as
moving around. What’s more, social robots communicate with people, following social
behaviours and rules. Especially pets have proven to be well-liked social robots. For
example, Sony introduced its interactive AIBO, a touch-sensitive pet, in 1999. Its
popularity led to Sony rereleasing ‘aibo’ 20 years later.
The French company Aldebaran Robotics developed the Nao Robot in 2006. While it
looked like a toy, it could be programmed to mimic human behaviour. It was even trialled
in human-robot interaction therapy with autistic children. Paro, an artificial harp seal
from Japan, has been supporting the therapy and care of elderly patients in hospitals and
nursing homes since 2009. It responds to petting with sounds, body movements and
opening and closing its eyes and has been shown to have positive effects on the activity
of older people.

Fig. 1.3 Paro supports the care of elderly patients

9
However, the social consequences of robotics depend to a significant degree on how
robots are employed by humans, and to another compelling degree on how robotics
evolves from a technical point of view. That is why it could be instructive for engineers
interested in cooperating with sociologists to get acquainted with the problems of social
work and other social services, and for sociologists interested in the social dimensions of
robotics to have a closer look at technical aspects of new generation robots. Regrettably,
engineers do not typically read sociological literature, and sociologists and social workers
do not regularly read engineers’ books and articles.

CHAPTER 2

ROBOTICS OF TODAY
By the dawn of the new millennium, robotics has undergone a major transformation in
scope and dimensions. This expansion has been brought about by the maturity of the field
and the advances in its related technologies. From a largely dominant industrial focus,
robotics has been rapidly expanding into the challenges of the human world (human-
centered and life-like robotics). The new generation of robots is expected to safely and
dependably co-habitat with humans in homes, workplaces, and communities, providing
support in services, entertainment, education, healthcare, manufacturing, and assistance.
At the Socially Intelligent Machines Lab at Austin, researchers develop algorithms that
help robots learn "in the wild" without constant human supervision, by interacting with
untrained members of the public to see if their attempts at a task are working. Most
robots are trained by imitation, but these ideas look toward social learning and
interactions with people for cues – helpful for machines that will be deployed as service
robots outside of labs.

10
 Fig. 2. 1 Newer robots

2.1 Today's Social and Industrial Robots

As robots become more and more sophisticated, engineers will
need the help of trained sociologists and psychologists in order to
create personas and scenarios and to “teach” humanoids how to
behave in various circumstances.
This type of interdisciplinary approach is particularly necessary after
the emergence of so-called “social robots.” A general definition of
social robot is provided by social scientist Kate Darling: A social
robot is a physically embodied, autonomous agent that communicates
and interacts with humans on an emotional level. For the purposes of
this report, it is important to distinguish social robots from inanimate
computers, as well as from industrial or service robots that are not
designed to elicit human feelings and mimic social cues. Social robots
also follow social behavior patterns, have various “states of mind,” and
adapt to what they learn through their interactions.

On the same page, Darling provides some examples: interactive robotic

toys like Hasbro’s Baby Alive My Real Babies; household companions
such as Sony’s AIBO dog, Jetta’s robotic dinosaur Pleo, and
Aldebaran’s NAO next generation robot; therapeutic pets like the Paro
baby seal; and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) robots
Kismet, Cog, and Leonardo. As we can see, social robots are mainly
humanoid or animaloid in form. Their shape is of fundamental
importance, since their function is to interact with humans on an
emotional level, and this type of interaction is grounded in visual and
tactile perception no less than in verbal communication. The use of
animaloid robots to comfort and entertain lonely older persons has

11
already triggered an ethical debate. By discussing the manufacture and
marketing of robot “pets,” such as Sony’s doglike “AIBO,” Robert
Sparrow (2002) has concluded that the use of robot companions is
misguided and unethical. This is because, in order to benefit
significantly from this type of interaction, the owners of robot pets
must systematically delude themselves regarding the real nature of
their relation with these machines shaped like familiar household pets.
If the search for truth about the world that surrounds us is an ethical
imperative, we may judge unethical the behavior of both the designers
and constructors of companion robots, and the buyers that indulge
themselves in this type of fake sentimentality. Russell Blackford (2012)
disagrees with this conclusion by emphasizing that, to some extent, we
are already self-indulgent in such fake sentimentality in everyday life
and such limited self-indulgence can coexist with ordinary honesty and
commitment to truth. In other words, Blackford does not deny that a
disposition to seek the truth is morally virtuous; however, he points
out that we should allow for some categories of exceptions. Pet robots
for dementia treatment could constitute one of such exceptions. In the
case of patients affected by dementia the priority is not giving them
an objective picture of reality but stimulating and engaging them. The
main goal of the social worker is helping them to communicate their
emotions, to reduce their anxiety, to improve their mood states, and
this may be achieved also by the use of animaloid and humanoid
companion robots (Odetti et al. 2007; Moyle et al. 2013). The
relevance of social robots should not be underestimated, especially by
applied sociologists. In technologically advanced societies, a process of
robotization of social work is already underway. For instance, robots
are increasingly used in the care of the elderly. This is a consequence
of two other processes occurring simultaneously: on the one hand, we
have an aging population with a resulting increase in demand for care
personnel; on the other hand, technological developments have created
conditions to deal with this problem in innovative ways. Priska
Flandorfer explains the view of experts from several fields that
assistive technologies nowadays permit older persons to live
independently in their home longer. Support ranges from telecare/smart
homes, proactive service systems, and household robots to robot-
assisted therapy and socially assistive robots. Surveillance systems can
detect when a person falls down, test blood pressure, recognise severe
breathing or heart problems, and immediately warn a caregiver. In spite
of the fact that we tend to associate physical support with machines

12
and psychological support with the intervention of flesh-and-blood
social workers, this rigid distinction vanishes when social robots are
involved in elderly care. Indeed, Flandorfer elaborates that Interactive
robots cooperate with people through bidirectional communication and
provide personal assistance with everyday activities such as reminding
older persons to take their medication, help them prepare food, eat,
and wash.
These technological devices collaborate with nursing staff and family
members to form a life support network for older persons by offering
emotional and physical relief. Social robots are specifically designed to
assist humans not only in social work, but also in other activities. One
of the main sources of information about robotic trends is a book
series published by Springer and edited by Bruno Siciliano and
Oussama Khatib. As Siciliano states: robotics is undergoing a major
transformation in scope and dimension. From a largely dominant
industrial focus, robotics is rapidly expanding into human environments
and vigorously engaged in its new challenges. Interacting with,
assisting, serving, and exploring with humans, the emerging robots will
increasingly touch people and their lives. As Siciliano has noticed, the
most striking advances happen at the intersection of disciplines. The
progress of robotics has an impact not only on the robots themselves,
but also on other scientific disciplines. In turn, these are sources of
stimulation and insight for the field of robotics. Biomechanics, haptics,
neurosciences, virtual simulation, animation, surgery, and sensor
networks are just a few examples of the kinds of disciplines that
stimulate and benefit from robotics research. Let us now explore a few
examples in greater detail; Effectiveness and safety of human-robot
interaction In 2013, four engineers – Jaydev P. Desai, Gregory Dudek,
Oussama Khatib, and Vijay Kumar – edited a book entitled
Experimental Robotics, a collection of essays compiled from the
proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Experimental
Robotics. The main focus of many of these pieces is the problem of
interaction and cooperation between humans and robots, and it is
frequently argued that the effectiveness and safety of that cooperation
may depend on technical solutions such as the use of pneumatic
artificial muscles (Daerden and Lefeber 2000). Moreover, each
technical device has advantages and disadvantages. For example, one
may gain in effectiveness but lose in safety, or vice versa (Shin et al.
2013, 101–102). An inspiring book on the issue of safety in robotics
is Sami Haddadin’s Towards Safe Robots: Approaching Asimov’s 1st

13
Law (2014). Haddadin points out that the topic of research called
HumanRobot Interaction is commonly divided into two major
branches:
1. Cognitive and social HumanRobot Interaction (cHRI);
2. Physical Human-Robot Interaction (pHRI).
As Haddaddin defines the two fields, cHRI “combines such diverse
disciplines as psychology, cognitive science, humancomputer interfaces,
human factors, and artificial intelligence with robotics.” It “intends to
understand the social and psychological aspects of possible interaction
between humans and robots and seeks” to uncover its fundamental
aspects. On the other hand, pHRI deals to a large extent with the
physical problems of interaction, especially from the view of robot
design and control. It focuses on the realization of so called human-
friendly robots by combining in a bottom-up approach suitable
actuation technologies with advanced control algorithms, reactive
motion generators, and path planning algorithms for achieving safe,
intuitive, and high performance physical interaction schemes. Safety is
obviously not a novel problem in robotics, nor in engineering more
generally. It has been a primary concern in pHRI, since in this field
continuous physical interaction is desired and it continues to grow in
importance. In the past, engineers mainly anticipated the development
of heavy machinery, with relatively little physical Human-Robot
Interaction. The few small robots that were able to move autonomously
in the environment and to interact with humans were too slow,
predictable, and immature to pose any threat. Consequently, the
solution was quite easy: segregation. Safety standards were commonly
tailored so as to separate the human workspace from that of robots.
Now the situation has changed. As Haddadin puts it:

due to several breakthroughs in robot design and control, first efforts

were undertaken recently to shift focus in industrial environments and
consider the close cooperation between human and robot. This
necessitates fundamentally different approaches and forces the
standardization bodies to specify new standards suitable for regulating
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). (2014, 7) These breakthroughs, and in
particular the developments of cHRI, have opened the road to a new
subdiscipline, or – if one prefers – a new interdisciplinary field:
Social Robotics. In spite of the fact that the name appears to speak to
a hybrid between the social sciences and engineering, at present, this
subdiscipline is mainly being cultivated by engineers, although with a

14
“humanistic” sensitivity. It is important to keep these aspects in mind,
as it is often the case that both technophiles and technophobes tend to
anticipate fantastic or catastrophic developments, without considering
the incremental, long and painstaking work on robotics which lay
behind and ahead. There are many small problems like those mentioned
above that need to be solved before we start seeing NDR-114 from
the film Bicentennial Man (1999) or Terminator-like machines walking
around on the streets.
For small-scale robots, this does not mean that science fiction literature
cannot be a source of ideas for robotic research. Just to give an
example, another direction in which robotics is moving is that of
small and even smaller automatic machines, such as: millirobots,
microrobots, and nanorobots. These robots would interact with humans
in a completely different way from macroscopic social robots. In the
Siciliano and Khatib series, there is an interesting book entitled Small-
Scale Robotics: From Nano-to-Millimeter-Sized Robotic Systems and
Applications, edited by Igor Paprotny and Sarah Bergbreiter (2014). In
their preface, the editors make explicit the impact that science fiction
has had on this area of research: In the 1968 movie The Fantastic
Voyage, a team of scientists is reduced in size to micro-scale
dimensions and embarks on an amazing journey through the human
body, along the way interacting with human microbiology in an
attempt to remove an otherwise inoperable tumor. Today, a
continuously growing group of robotic researchers is attempting to
build tiny robotic systems that perhaps one day can make the vision
of such direct interaction with human microbiology a reality. Smaller-
than-conventional robotic systems are described by the term “small-
scale robots.” These robots range from several millimeters to several
nanometers in size. Applications for such robots are numerous. They
can be employed in areas such as manufacturing, medicine, or search
and rescue. Nonetheless, the step from imagination to realization, or
from science fiction to science, is not a small one. There remain many
challenges that need to be overcome, such as those related to the
fabrication of such robots, to their control, and to the issue of power
delivery. Engineers regularly compare the capabilities of robotic
systems, including small-scale robots, to those of biological systems of
comparable size, and they often find inspiration in biology when
attempting to solve technical problems in such areas as navigation and
interactive behavior (Floreano and Mattiussi 2008, 399–514; Liu and
Sun 2012; Wang et al. 2006). Paprotny and Bergbreiter write: The

15
goal of small-scale robotics research is often to match, and ultimately
surpass, the capabilities of a biological system of the same size.
Autonomous biological systems at the millimeter scale (such as ants
and fruit flies) are capable of sensing, control and motion that allows
them to fully traverse highly unstructured environments and complete
complex tasks such as foraging, mapping, or assembly. From navigation
and manipulation to interaction In their book entitled Human-Robot
Interaction in Social Robotics (2013), Takayuki Kanda and Hiroshi
Ishiguro explain quite well the nature of the paradigm change that has
accompanied the shift from industrial robots to interactive robots. They
remind us that, up to recent times, robotics has been characterized by
two main streams of research: navigation and manipulation. The first
is the main function of autonomous mobile robots. The robot “observes
the environment with cameras and laser scanners and builds the
environmental model. With the acquired environmental model, it makes
plans to move from the starting point to the destination” (Kanda and
Ishiguro 2013, 1). The other stream in early robotics has been
manipulation, as exemplified by research on robot arms. Like a human
arm, the robot arm is often complex and therefore requires
sophisticated planning algorithms. There are countless industry-related
applications for both navigation and manipulation, and over the last
several decades innovations in these research areas have revolutionized
the field. Two different academic disciplines have been competing to
solve the problems related to navigation and manipulation: Artificial
Intelligence and robotics sensu stricto. According to Kanda and
Ishiguro, robotics now needs to engage in a new research issue –
interaction: Industrial robotics developed key components for building
more human-like robots, such as sensors and motors. From 1990 to
2000, Japanese companies developed various animal-like and human-
like robots. Sony developed AIBO, which is a dog-like robot and
QRIO, which is a small human-like robot. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Limited developed Wakamaru. Honda developed a child-like robot
called ASIMO. Unfortunately, Sony and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
Limited have stopped the projects but Honda is still continuing. The
purpose of these companies was to develop interactive robots. Social
robotics is gaining in importance because mobile robots are
increasingly required to perform tasks that necessitate their interaction
with humans. What is more, such human-robot interactions are
becoming a day-to-day occurrence. Japanese companies tend to develop
humanoids and androids because of their strong conviction that

16
machines with a human-like appearance can replicate the most natural
of communicative partners for humans, namely other humans. In the
words of Kanda and Ishiguro, the strongest reason for this research
program is “in the human innate ability to recognize humans and
prefer human interaction.” They add: “The human brain does not react
emotionally to artificial objects, such as computers and mobile phones.
However, it has many associations with the human face and can react
positively to resemblances to the human likeness” (2013, 5)....

CHAPTER THREE

ROBOTICS OF TOMORROW ( FUTURE OF

ROBOT)
3.1 Automation adoption
Warehouses have proved to be a good fit for automation, as they are
accustomed to several repeatable, specific, measurable tasks. Technologies,
such as artificial intelligence and robotics, are already working together to
achieve speed, efficiency and resiliency when managing inventory.
However, the increase in e-commerce is putting extra pressure on supply
chains that are already strained to the max, requiring tasks to be completed
in greater quantities and at a faster rate. In fact, 28 per cent of respondents to
a 2020 Supply Chain Survey ranked “improving supply chain
resiliency/responsiveness” as a top concern driving strategic change in their
supply chains.

17
Today’s intelligent robots are well suited to the complex demands of
omnichannel supply chains. For instance, autonomous mobile robots
(AMRs) are built with more agile navigational abilities, able to move about
anywhere in a warehouse by navigating with built-in sensor and laser
scanners, retrieving goods and bringing them to workers. With the constant
movement of people and objects, AMRs can maneuver around obstacles in
their path, and can even work in collaboration with people, unlike more
traditional automated guided vehicles (AGVs). This is essential because it
means that AMRs can adjust to new layouts and patterns, allowing
manufacturers to adapt to changing circumstances.
For example, Amazon, one of the most prominent disruptors in the retail
automation space, has deployed thousands of orange Kiva robots into its
warehouses. Having started with its acquisition of material handling
technology company Kiva Systems for $678 million back in 2012, Amazon
are continuing to use these AMRs in its fulfilment centers to lift stacks of
merchandise and move them to employee stations.
These machines not only eliminate the need for workers to walk around the
warehouse searching for items, but helps keep businesses afloat, and people
in work, during this turbulent time. Plus, for manufacturers wanting to
ensure these machines and other key mechanical drivers run smoothly with
minimal downtime, establishing a relationship with a parts supplier, like EU
Automation, can ensure the business can order a replacement place with
quick turnaround, when they need it most. As the US workforce continue to
encounter the pro and cons of this new working life, automation will help
businesses to maximize on this ecommerce opportunity, and ensure society
has what it needs to live and thrive. Manufacturers must keep pace with the
current complex market, and by investing in warehouse automation, like
AMRs, efficiency can be increased to meet demand.

3.2 Life Like Robots

Robotic engineers are designing the next generation of robots to look, feel
and act more human, to make it easier for us to warm up to a cold machine.
Realistic looking hair and skin with embedded sensors will allow robots to
react naturally in their environment. For example, a robot that senses your
touch on the shoulder and turns to greet you.
Subtle actions by robots that typically go unnoticed between people, help
bring them to life and can also relay non verbal communication. Artificial
eyes that move and blink. Slight chest movements that simulate breathing.
Man made muscles to change facial expressions. These are all must have
attributes for the socially acceptable robots of the future.

18
Fig. 3 Future Robots

3.3 Rescue Robots

Imagine yourself lost deep in the forest on a cold autumn night and nightfall
is rapidly approaching. Too windy for search aircraft and too dark for
ground teams, this could be a life threatening situation. Fortunately for you,
it is ten years into the future and hundreds of tiny intelligent robots will be
combing the woods for you throughout the night.
All terrain robots (ATRs), will truly function as a team by sharing their
locations, discoveries, search patterns and more. Large ATRs could carry
many smaller robots and provide them with localized control and power.
These smaller more specialized robots will have cameras, sonar, heat
sensors, motion detectors and can be sent out by the large ATRs as needed.
Smaller robots might work together to perform tasks such as moving a large
obstacle.

3.4 Robotic Competitions

The ultimate goal of the RoboCup project is to develop a team of fully
autonomous humanoid robots that can win against the human world
champion team in soccer by the year 2050. The FIRST Robotics
Competition challenges teams of young people and their mentors to solve a
common problem in a six-week timeframe using a standard "kit of parts"
and a common set of rules. Teams build robots from the parts and enter them
in competitions.

19
CONCLUSION

The Robotics life cycle has passed different stage with a fascinated grow
rate. The Robotics of yesterday , initially appear like a joke but today robot
is taking up the world at large. Companies and government are now adopting
Robotics machine to get there work done more faster and effectively.

On the AI side of things, Sophia, built by Hanson Robotics, was given

citizenship in Saudi Arabia in October 2017. Sophia is a celebrity in her own
right, appearing on shows like The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. She
was interviewed by Khaleej Times and expressed interest in starting a family
in the future, even going as far to say she’d name her daughter after herself.
Not long after, she announced plans to start a crowdfund for her AI, called
Singularity Net. The future of robot is well secure and as artificial
intelligence gains more recognition, it won't be surprised if the human labour
market is overtaken by robotic world. Technology can't be well propel
without this artificial intelligence. Even in military , there is chances that

20
military strength won't be quantified based on the number of soldiers
available but based on the number of warfare robots available . Today’s
robots are pretty dunderheaded. Tomorrow’s robots will be less
dunderheaded thanks to advancements in artificial intelligence —
particularly machine and deep learning. Humans will be replaced by robots
in some jobs and complemented by them in many others. New jobs will be
created, providing employment opportunities for retrained workers and
others who have the requisite skills. I believe the future of robotic machine
is well secured and it is imperative we all put up an effort to have impact in
the world of Artificial intelligence.

REFERENCE

1. Blackford, R. 2012. Robots and reality: A reply to Robert Sparrow.

2. Ethics and Information Technology 14(1): 41–51. Campa, Riccardo.
2015. 3. Humans and automata. A social study of robotics. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang. Daerden, F., and D. Lefeber. 2000. Pneumatic
artificial muscles: Actuators for robotics and automation. Vrije
Universiteit Brussel.
http://lucy.vub.ac.be/publications/Daerden_Lefeber_EJMEE.pdf (accessed
November 19, 2015).
4. Darling, Kate. 2012. Extending legal rights to social robots. Paper
presented at We Robot Conference. University of Miami, April 23.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2044797 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2044797
(accessed November 19, 2015). 5. Desai, J.P., G. Dudek, O. Khatib,
and V. Kumar, eds. 2013. Experimental robotics. Heidelberg: Springer.
Flandorfer, Priska. 2012.

21
6. Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons:
The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance.
International Journal of Population Research Article ID 829835 (13
pages).
7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/829835 (accessed November 19, 2015).
8. Floreano, D., and C. Mattiussi. 2008. Bio-inspired artificial
intelligence: Theories, methods, and technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Ge Shuzhi, S., H. Li, J.-J. Cabibihan, Y.K. Tan, eds. 2010.
9. Social robotics. Second international conference. Proceedings.
Heidelberg: Springer. Ge Shuzhi, S., O. Khatib, J.-J. Cabibihan, R.
Simmons, and M.-A. Williams, eds. 2012.
10. Social robotics. Fourth international conference. Proceedings.
Heidelberg: Springer. Haddadin, S. 2014. Towards safe robots:
Approaching Asimov’s 1st law. Heidelberg: Springer. Herrmann, G.,
M.J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, and U. Leonards, eds.
2012.
11. Social robotics. Fifth international conference. Proceedings.
Heidelberg: Springer. Kanda, T., and H. Ishiguro. 2013.
12. Human-robot interaction in social robotics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Liu, Y., and D. Sun. 2012. Biological inspired robotics.
13. A survey by Ware2Go on automation at
https://www.roboticstomorrow.com/story/2021/05/robots-at-the-ready-the-
future-of-warehouse-automation-/16871/
14. Nano-to-Millimeter-Sized Robotic Systems and Applications, edited
by Igor Paprotny and Sarah Bergbreiter (2014)
15. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.co.uk/article/robots-in-the-
workplace/amp
16. The use of animaloid and humanoid companion robots (Odetti et al.
2007; Moyle et al. 2013.

22