It’s not a big deal but I feel it’s getting a bit annoying.
I’m a science fiction fan, although no longer a big consumer. There are so many shallow solutions to narrative issues in movies and stories that I sometimes feel like completely avoiding the genre. In this thread I only want to refer to robots’ appearance.
Above all, do robots have to look like humans? Are androids a necessity? I don’t think so. I don’t see why the robot that cleans your home, puts out the fire or you hand your movie ticket to should look like a human being.
Moreover, why should androids resemble humans in such great detail? For instance, why should they have 32 teeth instead of dentures that only give the impression of individual teeth? Why should they wear clothes instead of being built with an outer layer giving the impression of clothes? Why should they be endowed with genitalia?
And last but not least, if robots do have to resemble human beings in such incredible detail (wear clothes and be endowed with all the parts that a regular human being has), how should the issue of androids’ nudity be addressed?
My opinion is that the great majority of robots should never look like humans. If a necessity, androids should only give the impression of looking like humans but their structure should not include superfluous features such as individual teeth, actual clothes or genitalia. Thus, an android’s nudity shouldn’t even exist or it shouldn’t be a bigger issue than a mannequin’s nudity.
An android that has the same shape, size, mobility and strength as a human would be useful in that it could just directly replace a human for using tools such as vehicles, construction equipment, etc - so (if properly implemented) they would be good for retrofitting into an existing, equipped situation to work alongside humans. We can have (and already do have) machines that work for us on specific tasks - a washing machine is a robot that only does laundry - but an android has (at least narratively) the potential to be a machine that does anything we want.
If we’re designing the whole world again from scratch, then there’s not so much reason to try to make them look like humans - I’m sure it’s possible to design a general-purpose robot that is capable of multiple different complex tasks, but that isn’t constrained to look like anything in particular - I guess industrial robotic assembly line equipment probably fits this bill.
But then there’s the ‘because we want to’ factor - we want to create things that look like moving, intelligent humans - this has been the desire of humans for centuries - whether it’s puppets, automata, or androids, there is a clear thread of yearning through all of it, to become the creators of something that is like ourselves.
A lot of written sf that has realistic human robots deals with questions of android rights, and what makes a human human. In the real world, very few robots look like people, and if they do, it’s a very superficial resemblance.
Screen sf, of course, has realistic androids because it’s cheaper to pay actors that way.
Does this ever come up unless it’s a specific plot point? Your Terminators may have genitals because they need to blend seamlessly with humans for their missions and it’s better to just add a dong than risk mission failure because he’s seen without one. On the other hand, I have no idea if Bishop from Aliens has dirty bits or how his teeth are attached.
Wearing clothes makes sense because making a realistic draping ‘fabric’ skin would be more difficult than normal smooth skin and the planet is full of clothes that would already match the android’s build. Plus, using clothes offers much more flexibility. Androids don’t sweat or stink (I assume) so they wouldn’t need to wash their clothes unless they get dirty from general wear. I just don’t see much advantage to a synthetic clothing layer attached to the android.
Assuming you are asking about real-life robots, there are plenty of them around, and automation is only going to increase in the near future, to support an aging and growing population and to free humans from dangerous or mindless drudgery. Having seen many robots in industrial and domestic settings, I must say I never got the impression any of them resembled a human.
Besides Terminators, there are androids which have some humanoid features; here is a non-toy example. But I question your assumption that they are common, resemble humans in detail (e.g., why would it need teeth instead of a die grinder?), or that such tasks necessarily require a humanoid robot: why not (besides cost) an octopodal robot rather than the one pictured?
It all depends on what you need the robot to do. The old sci-fi school of thought is to have lots of artificial humans (whether it’s a BladeRunner replicant, C3P0, Cylon Centurion, or terminator endoskeleton) doing all the tasks a human would do, except maybe they would be faster and better at it.
Nowadays we understand a lot better how robots would work IRL because we have a lot more robots and automation IRL. For example, you don’t have a humanoid robot drive a car. You build the car in the shape of a robot. It’s cheaper and more efficient to create purpose-built robots to perform specific tasks than it is to create humanoid robots to perform all tasks slightly better than a human can.
The main reason to make an android is you want your robot to pass as human and have people interact with it as a human. Perhaps in a service job like a bartender, robot maid, prostitute or live-action role playing game. Maybe some kind of robot assassin, but I feel like there are cheaper ways to kill people and the tech is pretty expensive to just be “disposable” if it’s caught.
In science fiction, humans typically create androids or artificial humans mostly for the sake of “Frankenstein” and “robot slave uprising” stories.
That and it looks more impressive to us normal people in the audience. A realistic looking android implies more technological advancement than a box on treads.
Because the 600 series had rubber skin. People spotted them easy.
The real-life answer is that your android/cyborg has to pass for human in excruciating detail because they are being played on screen by a real-life human actor. Not trying to be flippant. I feel like sci fi actually doesn’t address the fact enough that just because the robot LOOKS like, say, Evan Rachel Wood in Westworld, there is a pretty good chance it’s going to FEEL like a clammy Madamn Tussauds creation filled with clockworks when you go to have sex with it.
Which actually brings me to my next point. If an android only looks “mostly human” it can enter the “uncanny valley” where it creeps people out.
You just made Wall-E sad.
Also, androids that look, talk, act and otherwise to appear human are more relatable and sympathetic. Especially in your typical Frankenstein or robot slave uprising stories. In those stories, the robots are often a stand in for oppressed humans in general. Or they represent a more advanced form of human that we might aspire to.
It’s the reason why Blade Runner (1982) and Terminator (1984) are classics that continue to be franchised while most people don’t remember the Michael Crichton film Runaway (1984). No one cares about Tom Selleck “retiring” crappy malfunctioning “box on treads” robots.
I never understood what the fundamental difference was between Data’s “AI” brain and the AI on the Enterprise or other starships. Or is the Enterprise computer a glorified Alexa or Siri, incapable of agency or self determination? Or, for that matter, why the Enterprise needs a crew of thousands instead of one…or none? “Enterprise…go patrol the Neutral Zone.” “Enterprise…go attack that Borg cube.”
Speaking of Borg, why do they all look human? Yes, I get that because all Star Trek aliens are humanoid for budgetary reasons. But why not Borg dogs and monkeys and birds? Borg insects? Giant Borg? There has to be Borg tasks for which “human” isn’t the best shape.
Which makes me think of the movie Her (which I’ve never actually seen, it may have addressed this) where a guy fell in love with a cell phone because the voice assistant sounded like Scarlett Johansson. Nobody would have gone for it if the phone had sounded like the old woman from Throw Momma From the Train.
In the fiction books I’ve written robots are shaped like squat cylinders with three legs (for stability), two arms, and an articulated antenna appendage for reaching things that are otherwise out of their reach. They have two pairs of eyes front and back) and no face beyond that. They compact down into simple featureless cylinders for storage and come in two standard sizes - three inches tall, and three feet tall. The little ones are used for house cleaning and maintenance, and the larger ones for more industrial purposes. Generally speaking they’re service machines - they don’t have emotions or personalities.
Unless a robot was trying to pass as a person there’s no particular reason to shape the robot like a person, and plenty of reasons not to - humans are ungainly and if the imitation isn’t perfect you flirt with the uncanny valley. The only reason to shape one like a person would be if you wanted to have sex with it - or if it was being portrayed by a human actor.
… would be an android. A robot which didn’t look like a human wouldn’t be an android.
This is interesting, and likely somewhat true, but it raises the question of why we’d want do-all robots to begin with, as opposed to the current scenario of making specialized robots, in some cases by adding computer control to existing machinery, as in self-driving cars and self-flying planes.
A washing machine is a much better system for cleaning clothes than a robot that will go to the well, pull up buckets of water to fill the washtub, chop wood, build a fire, heat the water in the washtub, and scrub the clothes on a washboard with its metallic hands. A combine harvester is a much better system for harvesting wheat than thousands of robot field hands carrying sickles.
It makes a sort of half-sense to imagine an android that can just step into the exact role of a human being, using the same tools and interface, only better, faster, and more tirelessly. Except that’s not how things work. You’re going to get a robot chauffeur to drive your 1968 4-door Lincoln Continental? No, you’re going to buy a 2033 Google DrivePod that doesn’t need a driver. If all you’ve got is a rusty old Lincoln Continental and you can’t afford a new car, how are you going to afford that robot chauffeur?
Sometimes old tools and systems are just a dead loss, and it’s cheaper to throw them out and start from scratch than it is to keep slapping on bandaid after bandaid until all you’ve got is a giant bundle of latex and linen.
I’m writing a whole book on this, so I’m gonna to sit heavily on myself to keep it very short.
In real life, there’s no real point to imitate humans with robots from a commercial stance. Being able to mimic walking and grasping is useful because that will lead to better prosthetics, but the completely humanoid robot is a lost cause. Will 3-D printing of organs lead to androids made with synthetic flesh? Maybe sometime, but probably not for a generation or two. Brains are a sticking point. We don’t have any, mechanical or synthetic, no matter how easily that’s handwaved away by writers. My hunch is that clones will make that moot long before we get that far. (Sex dolls are a different issue; there the more human the better, but we’re still nowhere close.)
In fiction, robots are a metaphor or seven. After reading or watching or listening to a thousand robot stories, I’m struck with how few robot plots there are. (And how many authors don’t realize that they have nothing new to say on the subject.) Some stories work better with obviously non-human robots, but a lot require robots interchangeable with humans. In visual media, of course, it’s just plain sensible. Depending on your definitions, that either started with R.U.R. or it started much earlier with vaudeville acts of people pretending to be automata. CGI is finally at a point where fully animated robots can be inserted into big budget features, but the Westworld approach is far more cost effective.
How long has this question been being asked? In 1943 Anthony Boucher writing as H. H. Holmes published two stories, “Q.U.R.” and “Robinc.” that were based on the idea that robots were going neurotic because they were made to look like humans and most of their parts were redundant. Fortunately, these were comic stories done mostly to spoof the notion that robots should look human, which was already silly even in 1943.
Technically it was a cloud-based operating system that he could install on multiple devices. And the character was a fully fleshed out AI with a charming personality. Like HALO Cortana, but without a body. Not stupid like Microsoft Cortana.
Which actually makes a decent use case for an android. Not to get too spoiler-y, but as you might guess, any sort of…physical…interaction between the guy in Her and his AI love interest would be challenging.
Another sci-fi use case for a humanoid robot comes from the films Avatar and Surrogates. I can think of all sorts of reasons one might want the ability to hop into a VR rig and pilot an artificial human somewhere else on the planet. Not a robot, technically, but similar technology.