Crossed Wires: The robots are coming, the robots are here
Science fiction fans will remember Isaac Asimov's prescient 1950 short story collection, 'I, Robot'. The stories in this iconic collection revolve around the memories of robopsychologist Dr Susan Calvin, 75 years old in 2057. There are many ethical themes in his stories that mirror the hot-button technology debates raging today, but Asimov's futuristic vision appears to have been a couple of decades off.
The robots aren't coming some time in the future. They're already here.
It is sometimes difficult to pin down why a particular subject bubbles to the top of the news cycle. AI, of course, has taken hold of the headlines and won't let go; its grip is fierce. But robotics has been around for a very long time, since the first commercial industrial robot was developed in 1961 (the 'Unimate' at General Motors), and it's been around even longer in the human imagination.
The first point of interest is that there is a profound change happening in some sectors of robot production. The original robots, most of them built for industrial manufacturing, were essentially a collection of servo motors, spherical joints, pincers, cutters, drillers, welders and the like, all operating under very precise instructions, repeating the same physical actions ad infinitum — or until their instructions were modified in line with changing production requirements.
This description somewhat simplifies the intelligence built into these robots, but the key point is that the instructions for physical actions over time were predetermined and cast in silicon, driven by hardened computer code. As the technologies of vision, touch, movement, location awareness and proprioception have advanced, so have the robots undertaken more ambitious (and sometimes audacious) jobs, such as critical surgery in an operating theatre. All with increasingly exquisite sensitivity of both fine and gross motor control.
This brings us to the question of which countries are currently on the robotics playing field. The US, having outsourced nearly all its manufacturing requirements during the heady days of globalisation, didn't even try to take a leadership role in robotics. Surprisingly, China is not leading either — it became serious about robotics rather too late (around 2015).
Until recently, the top 10 robot manufacturers have been Japanese (8) and German (2). In a remarkably unChinese move, a company called Midea Group, based in Guangdong province, acquired the German company Kuka in 2017, clearly taking note of the capitalist tactic of buying one's way into technology leadership rather than doing the hard work of building and competing.
They're doing everything
What are the latest machines doing? Increasingly, everything. Manufacturing, obviously, both heavy and light. Add medical robots doing everything from brain to spinal surgery; nano-robots of less than 100nm in size for targeted drug delivery (in pre-clinical development); agricultural robots for planting, harvesting, plant healthcare and packing; and military robots with a bewildering and sometimes scary array of offensive and defensive capabilities (see below — a rather alarming picture of Ghost Robotics' robodog Spot mounted with an automatic weapon).
In short, robots are quickly colonising every arena of human endeavour that requires physical labour or dexterity. This leads to the question of how the robots are performing. Are they more productive? Are they taking jobs?
The data are startling. Dispiriting for some and exciting for others, depending on what you do to earn your living. As with all transformative technologies, it's a mixed bag of pain and pleasure for those caught in its net. Here are some statistics:
A 40× increase in global robot stock since 2000;
A 15× increase in robots per worker since 2000;
A 30% increase in productivity compared to human labour by 2030 (McKinsey);
A 90% reduction in manufacturing defects (Foxconn iPhone production);
A 3× decrease in the return on investment period since 2000 (down from 10 years to about three years);
A 35% increase in crop yields (forecast); and
A total of 85 million jobs lost by 2035, and only 20 million created (World Economic Forum).
There is more, but the picture is clear. There is no stopping this train.
To return to the profound change mentioned earlier in this column, the convergence of new generative AI models and robotics is going to supercharge the industry.
The core foundation of robots following a precise set of instructions (albeit often complex) is being reshaped. Robots are now being built that can learn autonomously and continuously from their environments (sight, audio, touch, 'smell', heat, humidity).
They can be addressed via vernacular human speech, learn from their mistakes, communicate to solve problems with other robots and access vast stores of knowledge now available from companies like OpenAI.
(For anyone looking for a glimpse of the future, watch this 2.5-minute video; take note of how the robots communicate with each other.)
At this point, the ghost of Isaac Asimov might raise its head. We are already on the edge of AI systems that can set their own goals. We have already seen indications of deceptive behaviour by these systems, in both controlled and uncontrolled experiments. Bad behaviour and misinformation (such as Grok's racist outbursts) are now part of the AI landscape.
Asimov's famous three laws of robotics come to mind: protect humans, obey humans, protect yourselves.
They were followed by his 'Zeroth Law', which updated and replaced the others: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
It's a nice thought, but I am not sure we know how to build that into the great robot revolution. And, even if we did, it is probably too late. DM
(For an in-depth but concise look at the robotics industry, check out this article.)
Steven Boykey Sidley is a professor of practice at JBS, University of Johannesburg, a partner at Bridge Capital and a columnist-at-large at Daily Maverick. His new book, 'It's Mine: How the Crypto Industry is Redefining Ownership', is published by Maverick451 in SA and Legend Times Group in the UK/EU, available now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
Tolkien's sci-fi shows we need only one ring
(Graphic: John McCann/M&G) I love science fiction movies and series. But what always bothered me was that as imaginative, forward-thinking, inventive and superlatively intelligent as the worlds and multiple universes they created, it was no match for the diversity we have on Earth and humankind. Even my current favourite Apple TV+'s Foundation, based on the genius Isaac Asimov's 1950s book series, cannot create a world or planet as diverse as ours. Generally speaking, movies and TV series have just one type of people per planet. Indeed, a planet is often a single city. When I read politics and philosophy at university, I was introduced to Douglas Adams and his amazing book series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the 'trilogy in four parts'. It was through Adams' Hitchhiker's books that I began to recognise the lessons I had been picking up from Star Trek and Star Wars movies. All the stories involved good fighting against an overwhelming evil power, while they try to build a new society that is based on equality and freedom. There are obvious comparisons to South Africa's resistance against the apartheid government and military. But some of the greatest minds cannot imagine a world as diverse as Earth's or conjure up a species with a multitude of cultures, nationalities and peoples as the human race. It is British-South African writer JRR Tolkien, in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, who is able to best reflect the many sides of humankind. In truth though, Tolkien's books are fantasy and, strictly speaking, not sci-fi. But I like to think of fantasy and sci-fi as close cousins. Although Tolkien wrote the books during World War II, he strongly denied they were an allegory of that war. But it would not be incorrect to reflect that Tolkien's experiences in World War II influenced his writing. So maybe the evil Sauron was not necessarily Hitler, but it is not too farfetched to relate Sauron's evil purpose to build a world that serves him and over which he has complete control to the objectives of Nazi fascism. We should not focus on the banal evil of Sauron or his minions, the Orcs. There have been articles accusing Tolkien of being racist in his descriptions of the Orcs. But thinking of the Orcs as black people is a cop-out and not a useful unpacking of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. It is in The Hobbit that Tolkien explores and describes the inequality of the world and how accepting we are of the inequality, despite supposedly fighting against it. It is the experiences of the dwarfs and the difficulties they face that reflect our world; one in which those who have precious resources are made to mine them and hand them over to the elves so that they can rule the world forever. Tolkien presents the elves as close to immortal and beautiful, almost God-like. The dwarfs are short and stumpy, nothing noble about them. They covet Earth's riches, but do not know how to develop them. So it's in the interests of all of Earth that the elves take these jewels to invent machinery and technology to make the world easier. But it requires the dwarfs to live in the dark, remain in the bowels of the mountains and mine the precious treasures. The hobbits are of course, the simple rural and working class, who befriend the dwarfs and assist in creating a balance with their simple lives. Just when the opportunity of equality presents itself, the human penchant for greed takes over and this allows evil to reign. The implication is clear: there can only be a semblance of equality. The elves rule (benevolently because they are naturally good, of course) and the dwarfs remain underground mining for the elves, while the rural and working class produce the goods and live in their Middle Earth. The elves like to say that if they are not revered and allowed to remain in charge then an evil Sauron will take over. Our world today is not very different to what Tolkien reflected upon. The instability in the world is not fuelled by US President Donald Trump, even though he benefits from it. The real fear for our elves (the political West) is that if the current path is allowed to continue it will result in them no longer being in charge. In their understanding they cannot exist unless they have hegemonic control of the world; it is the natural order of things. For them, Russia and China are Sauron, and it is in our interests to reinforce the West so that the 'evil' Russia and China do not take over. If we look at our international multilateral system, we have to accept that even though it is stated that all countries are equal and sovereign, the multilateral institutions are deliberately created with structural inequalities. The obvious one is the United Nations, where it is only the UN Security Council that makes decisions that must be implemented. The resolutions of the UN General Assembly are ceremonial and no one is compelled to implement them. And the five permanent members of the UN Security Council possess a veto vote, which means all five must agree for a resolution to be passed. The unequal power dynamic of the Security Council is generally catered for by creative means by all other multilateral institutions. Thus, the International Monetary Fund is always headed up by a European, who must be approved by the United States. The World Bank is always headed by an American. The International Criminal Court (ICC) must charge those the Security Council tells it to, even though not all the permanent members of the Security Council have ratified and signed the ICC's Rome Statute. Essentially, the inequality is multiplied and reinforced. It is impossible that these unequal relations could go on forever. But, just like the elves regarded themselves as immortal, in reality the West and its leaders cannot understand why they are not liked. French leaders find it weird that former French colonies would prefer Beijing over Paris. The legions of Western sympathisers in Central and South America, as well as Africa and parts of South East Asia, have a difficult time trying to understand why the masses would cheer Putin and Xi Jinping, but not get excited by Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. For too long we have regarded a see-saw as balance. A see-saw is unbalanced or, at most, an uneasy balance, where one is higher and the other lower, only for the reverse to occur. If one remains on top, the other at the bottom need only to walk away for the one on top to be brought back down to earth. As Tolkien's books reveal, we are made to believe that someone has to be on top or in charge for there to be stability and balance. But that is not stability, that is dominance expressed as stability. Our three-legged potjie or four-legged chair is balance and stability. We need to reconstruct this world, so that it reflects not who is in charge or is the most powerful but rather how to ensure that everyone has a voice. Africa, together with Central and South America and parts of South East Asia, should not swop the dominance of the West for China, Russia and India. It is important that they join Brics, but they need to recreate the Non-Aligned Movement without India, Russia and China. They can provide Pakistan conditional membership because of its nuclear weapon capability. If Iran goes the nuclear route, they should also be treated in a similar manner. The Gen-Z Non-Aligned Movement has to be different to its predecessors; it has to form a trade bloc. The non-nuclear political South has to either unite or accept that either the Western or Eastern elves remain in charge, and that we, like the dwarfs, must hide in the dark and only come out to praise them. Donovan E Williams is a social commentator. @TheSherpaZA on X.
eNCA
a day ago
- eNCA
Physicists still divided about quantum world, 100 years on
The theory of quantum mechanics has transformed daily life since being proposed a century ago, yet how it works remains a mystery -- and physicists are deeply divided about what is actually going on, a survey in the journal Nature said Wednesday. "Shut up and calculate!" is a famous quote in quantum physics that illustrates the frustration of scientists struggling to unravel one of the world's great paradoxes. For the last century, equations based on quantum mechanics have consistently and accurately described the behaviour of extremely small objects. However, no one knows what is happening in the physical reality behind the mathematics. The problem started at the turn of the 20th century, when scientists realised that the classical principles of physics did not apply to things on the level on atoms. Bafflingly, photons and electrons appear to behave like both particles and waves. They can also be in different positions simultaneously -- and have different speeds or levels of energy. In 1925, Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger and Germany's Werner Heisenberg developed a set of complex mathematical tools that describe quantum mechanics using probabilities. This "wave function" made it possible to predict the results of measurements of a particle. These equations led to the development of a huge amount of modern technology, including lasers, LED lights, MRI scanners and the transistors used in computers and phones. But the question remained: what exactly is happening in the world beyond the maths? - A confusing cat - To mark the 100th year of quantum mechanics, many of the world's leading physicists gathered last month on the German island of Heligoland, where Heisenberg wrote his famous equation. More than 1,100 of them responded to a survey conducted by the leading scientific journal Nature. The results showed there is a "striking lack of consensus among physicists about what quantum theory says about reality", Nature said in a statement. More than a third -- 36 percent -- of the respondents favoured the mostly widely accepted theory, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. In the classical world, everything has defined properties -- such as position or speed -- whether we observe them or not. But this is not the case in the quantum realm, according to the Copenhagen interpretation developed by Heisenberg and Danish physicist Niels Bohr in the 1920s. It is only when an observer measures a quantum object that it settles on a specific state from the possible options, goes the theory. This is described as its wave function "collapsing" into a single possibility. The most famous depiction of this idea is Schroedinger's cat, which remains simultaneously alive and dead in a box -- until someone peeks inside. The Copenhagen interpretation "is the simplest we have", Brazilian physics philosopher Decio Krause told Nature after responding to the survey. Despite the theory's problems -- such as not explaining why measurement has this effect -- the alternatives "present other problems which, to me, are worse," he said. - Enter the multiverse - But the majority of the physicists supported other ideas. Fifteen percent of the respondents opted for the "many worlds" interpretation, one of several theories in physics that propose we live in a multiverse. It asserts that the wave function does not collapse, but instead branches off into as many universes as there are possible outcomes. So when an observer measures a particle, they get the position for their world -- but it is in all other possible positions across many parallel universes. "It requires a dramatic readjustment of our intuitions about the world, but to me that's just what we should expect from a fundamental theory of reality," US theoretical physicist Sean Carroll said in the survey. The quantum experts were split on other big questions facing the field. Is there some kind of boundary between the quantum and classical worlds, where the laws of physics suddenly change? Forty-five percent of the physicists responded yes to this question -- and the exact same percentage responded no. Just 24 percent said they were confident the quantum interpretation they chose was correct. And three quarters believed that it will be replaced by a more comprehensive theory one day. By Bénédicte Rey
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Nintendo quarterly revenue surges thanks to Switch 2
The Switch 2 smashed industry records by selling 3.5 million units in its first four days, and Nintendo said Friday it had shifted around 5.8 million consoles in its first month. Image: File Nintendo on Friday said quarterly revenue had more than doubled year-on-year thanks to the Switch 2, which became the world's fastest-selling console after its launch in June. Pent-up demand for the new gadget from the "Super Mario" gamemaker fuelled fan excitement at the release, which saw sold-out pre-orders and midnight store openings. The Switch 2 smashed industry records by selling 3.5 million units in its first four days, and Nintendo said Friday it had shifted around 5.8 million consoles in its first month. "Net sales increased significantly in the first quarter, due mainly to the launch of Nintendo Switch 2," the Japanese company said as it reported a 132% on-year jump in sales for the April-June quarter to 572 billion yen ($3.8 billion). Net profit in the quarter was up 19% on-year. "The launch of Switch 2 has surpassed many people's expectations," and it will be hard for another console to match its strong start, gaming industry consultant Serkan Toto told AFP. "Nintendo should be able to comfortably ride on this momentum through the holidays and into 2026," although a key challenge will be maintaining a consistent supply of popular games, he said. The company says it expects to sell 15 million Switch 2 units by the end of March 2026, a target it left unchanged on Friday. Although the Japanese gamemaker is diversifying into hit movies and theme parks, console hardware remains the core of its business. The Switch 1, a hybrid console that can be used on-the-go or connected to a television, soared in popularity during the pandemic with hit games such as "Animal Crossing". It has sold 152 million units since its 2017 release, making it the third best-selling console of all time after Sony's PlayStation 2 and the Nintendo DS. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Although the Switch 2 has a bigger screen and more processing power, and new features including controllers that can also be used like a desktop computer mouse, the hybrid concept is the same. It is also more expensive than its predecessor, at $449.99 in the United States, compared to a launch price of $299.99 for the original Switch. The postponed launch of the hugely anticipated "Grand Theft Auto VI" by US publisher Rockstar Games from this year to May 2026 will also be a bright point, Toto said. "If GTA6 launched this year, it would have sucked almost all the oxygen out of the room and made marketing Switch 2 definitely harder for Nintendo," Toto said. AFP
