Exactly Are these robots?

確切地說，這些是機器人嗎？

How about this?

這個怎麼樣？

Surely a silvery humanoid hell bent on destruction as a robot?

當然，一個銀色的人形物體一心想要毀滅的機器人？

Right.

對。

The thing is it's actually really hard to define a robot, much less get robotics is to agree on a universal definition.

問題是，實際上很難對機器人進行定義，更不用說讓機器人學在一個普遍的定義上達成一致。

That may seem trivial, but it has serious implications as robots become a bigger part of our lives.

這可能看起來微不足道，但隨著機器人成為我們生活中更大的一部分，它有嚴重的影響。

So let's take a stab at defining what a robot is.

是以，讓我們來試著定義一下什麼是機器人。

But a lot of people tend to follow is this sense think act paradigm which is that the machine has to be capable of somehow sensing its environment and then thinking about or planning its next action and then somehow acting on the world.

但很多人傾向於遵循的是這種意義上的思考行為範式，即機器必須能夠以某種方式感知其環境，然後思考或計劃其下一步行動，然後以某種方式對世界採取行動。

So consider a drone.

所以考慮使用無人機。

You pilot to pester your neighbors.

你試著去糾纏你的鄰居。

Is that a robot?

那是一個機器人嗎？

Well no it doesn't sense its environment or think on its own.

嗯，不，它不能感知環境，也不能獨立思考。

It acts but only because you tell it to but get yourself an autonomous drone.

它採取行動，但只是因為你告訴它，但給自己找一個自主的無人機。

And suddenly it's a lot more robotic its senses and thinks and acts on its own.

而突然間，它的感覺和思考以及行動都更加機器人化了。

So the key here is intelligence and artificial intelligence agent.

是以，這裡的關鍵是智能和人工智能代理。

To me is an agent that acts to maximize a person's utility.

對我來說是一個代理人，其行為是為了使一個人的效用最大化。

So robots have to actually work together with people and use human guidance and human oversight to learn more about you know what people actually want?

是以，機器人必須真正與人合作，並使用人類的指導和人類的監督，以瞭解更多關於你知道人們實際上想要什麼？

What are their values?

他們的價值觀是什麼？

What makes them happy?

是什麼讓他們快樂？

So they're no longer just the brutes that follow a series of commands like a robot arm on a factory floor.

是以，他們不再只是像工廠工廠中的房間裡的機械臂一樣聽從一系列指令的蠻子。

But how have they changed exactly what you're going to see here is very much work in progress.

但是，他們如何改變了你將在這裡看到的具體內容，是非常有進展的工作。

But it gives us a little bit of a glimpse into two different definitions of robotics.

但它讓我們對機器人技術的兩種不同定義有了些許瞭解。

Okay, so now the robot is moving and I'm unhappy with it because it's keeping this too far away from the ground from the table.

好了，現在機器人正在移動，我對它很不滿意，因為它讓這個東西離地面離桌子太遠了。

So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna push on it a little bit but it just keeps on going back because it's utility says that it should stay far away from the table.

所以我要做的是我要推一下它，但它只是不斷地往回走，因為它的效用說它應該遠離桌子。

So no matter what I do, well it lets me deformity but it just goes right back to stubbornly doing it the way it thinks is the optimal way to do the task.

是以，無論我做什麼，好吧，它讓我變形，但它只是回到了頑固地按照它認為是完成任務的最佳方式來做。

So now this is a robot that tries to optimize what I want and tries to figure out what it is that that I want.

是以，現在這是一個試圖優化我想要的東西的機器人，並試圖弄清楚我想要的是什麼。

And so when I pushed it down, it actually understood that okay, I must have not been doing the task right.

是以，當我把它推下去時，它實際上明白，好吧，我一定是沒有把任務做對。

To begin with.

首先是。

The stubborn robot is a traditional robot and the one that's sensitive to human needs is a new breed.

頑固的機器人是傳統的機器人，而對人類需求敏感的機器人是一個新品種。

But why worry so much about semantics here?

但為什麼要在這裡為語義學擔心這麼多呢？

Because robot is a loaded word.

因為機器人是一個有價值的詞。

So I think robotics definitely has a pr problem.

所以我認為機器人技術肯定有一個pr問題。

It can be kind of a double edged sword in some ways because the word robot just generates a lot of attention and fascination and sometimes fear.

在某些方面，這可能是一把雙刃劍，因為機器人這個詞只是產生了大量的關注和迷戀，有時是恐懼。

So you can use it to get people's attention or to make people pay attention to your product.

是以，你可以用它來引起人們的注意，或者讓人們注意你的產品。

I mean it's much sexier to call something a robot than call something a dishwasher at the same time.

我的意思是，把東西稱為機器人比同時把東西稱為洗碗機要性感得多。

Robot is still a dirty word of sorts.

機器人仍然是某種意義上的髒字。

Especially with all this talk of machines stealing jobs and the rise of artificial intelligence could put even more people out of work in the coming decades.

特別是在所有這些關於機器搶奪工作的討論中，人工智能的興起可能在未來幾十年讓更多人失去工作。

But it's a I aa robot.

但它是一個I aa機器人。

No not on its own.

不，不是單獨的。

A robot is a physical thing and that gets tricky with something like a robot tax meaning steal a human job, pay a fee heard from people like Bill Gates.

機器人是一個有形的東西，這在像機器人稅這樣的事情上變得很棘手，意味著偷取人類的工作，支付從比爾-蓋茨等人那裡聽到的費用。

You know, robots should be taxed.

你知道，機器人應該被徵稅。

Okay.

好的。

Well what is a robot?

那麼什麼是機器人呢？

You know, are your software products that you have disrupted labor markets with?

你知道，你的軟件產品是否已經擾亂了勞動力市場？

Also robots?

也是機器人？

Or is a robot something physical.

或者說，機器人是一種物理性的東西。

So I think as we start to discuss the policy implications, we're going to need more definitional work robots come in different kinds and we have to be careful about which kind we mean when we brand something and when we formally define the problem that we're working on so that we can be clear about what it is that we're trying to achieve.

是以，我認為，當我們開始討論政策影響時，我們將需要更多的定義工作，機器人有不同的種類，我們必須小心，當我們給一些東西打上品牌時，當我們正式定義我們正在研究的問題時，我們是指哪一種，以便我們可以清楚地知道我們正在努力實現什麼。

In the end the machines are here to stay so we better get to know them.

最終，機器將在這裡停留，所以我們最好了解它們。

Just be careful who you call a robot.

只是要小心你稱誰為機器人。

Yeah.

是的。