455: Snaps!
Transcript from 455: Snaps! with Natalie Friedman, Christopher White, and Elecia White.
EW (00:06):
Welcome to Embedded. I am Elecia White, alongside Christopher White. Our guest this week, well, we are going to talk about fashion and robots. I am excited. Our guest is Natalie Friedman.
CW (00:19):
Hi, Natalie. Welcome.
NF (00:21):
Thank you. Hi.
EW (00:23):
Could you tell us about yourself, as if we met at NYC Resistor?
NF (00:32):
Sure. My name is Natalie. I am a PhD candidate at Cornell Tech. I am working on designing clothing for robots. NYC Resistor is actually 20 minutes away from my university. Cornell Tech is a satellite campus of Cornell, on Roosevelt Island in Manhattan.
(00:47):
I guess I would say I am an art generalist, and also human-robot interaction researcher. I studied cognitive science, so I am looking at robots from a social science perspective. And now I am in the field of human-robot interaction.
(01:02):
Things that I would study are, how can we make robots more socially appropriate? How close should robots physically be to you, say in an elevator? And, how tall should robots be to make people more comfortable?
(01:18):
I am looking at clothing for robots. I have always been kind of crafty. I have been into jewelry and pottery, photography, painting, drawing. And it is always fun for me to learn new methods for crafting. So I wanted to learn how to sew, and this is while I was studying human-robot interaction.
(01:35):
So I thought, "How could robots move more beautifully?" Like in animation, right? Because robots tend to be rigid in their movement. So I sewed up a skirt for Blossom the robot, and had Blossom twirl. It was totally magical. And the rest was history. <laugh>
EW (01:58):
Excellent. We want to do lightning round, where we ask you questions.
NF (02:01):
Okay.
EW (02:02):
Short questions, and we want short answers. And if we are behaving ourselves, we will not ask what exactly conductive thread do you prefer? But maybe we will.
NF (02:09):
Okay <laugh>.
EW (02:09):
Are you ready?
NF (02:11):
Yes.
CW (02:13):
Art or technology?
NF (02:16):
Art.
EW (02:17):
Favorite fabric?
NF (02:22):
Hmm. Linen.
CW (02:23):
Buttons, snaps or zippers?
NF (02:26):
Snaps! <laugh>
EW (02:29):
Conductive thread, yes or no? And if so, what kind?
NF (02:33):
<laugh> Hmm. Yes. And with a low resistance.
CW (02:41):
Favorite non-fictional robot.
NF (02:45):
Blossom.
CW (02:47):
Okay. I am not familiar with that. And we are going to break the rules-
EW (02:49):
Is that Gilmore Girls?
CW (02:49):
And you are going to have to tell me. Gilmore Girls?
EW (02:52):
Was there not somebody named Blossom on- But I do not think she was a robot.
CW (02:54):
Blossom was its own show, but she was not a robot. She was-
EW (02:57):
Okay.
CW (02:58):
Who is Blossom?
NF (03:00):
Blossom is a robot made at Cornell, and it is-
CW (03:03):
Ah.
NF (03:04):
Made with rubber bands and wood, and it is like a DIY robot.
CW (03:07):
Okay. We will have to look up a picture of that.
NF (03:10):
Sure.
EW (03:12):
Do you have a favorite place to watch whales in Santa Cruz?
NF (03:15):
Mmm. I would say, the Boardwalk.
CW (03:23):
Complete one project or start a dozen?
NF (03:26):
Start a dozen.
EW (03:27):
If you could teach a college course, what would you want to teach?
NF (03:29):
Mm. A small studio course, about clothing for robots. And I would teach it to fashion designers and social scientists together.
CW (03:39):
Favorite fictional robot?
NF (03:42):
EVE from WALL-E.
CW (03:44):
The popular one.
NF (03:45):
Yeah <laugh>.
EW (03:48):
Do you have a tip everyone should know?
NF (03:50):
Okay. When you buy peanut butter, <laugh> all the oil is usually at the top. But if you flip it over before-
EW (03:59):
Yes!
NF (03:59):
You eat it, then the oil gets evenly distributed.
CW (04:02):
Why are you looking at me?
NF (04:03):
Grab the peanut butter.
EW (04:04):
You store it upside down. Because I have seen you put them right side up in the cupboard.
NF (04:09):
<laugh>
CW (04:10):
I do not eat the peanut butter?
EW (04:11):
I know. So why do you?
CW (04:12):
So what does it matter to me?
NF (04:17):
<laugh> I just want to give credit to Marsha Carlin. She gave me that tip. <laugh>
EW (04:23):
Okay, so robots and clothes. You said it is about human-robot interaction, human-computer interaction.
NF (04:32):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>
EW (04:33):
It is not about clothes themselves that are robotic. No smart scarves that open doors for me?
NF (04:40):
Yeah, that does sound cool. But yeah, I am talking about robots that are wearing clothes, to support their own tasks. And then indirectly your tasks, right, with the robot. So for example, I was working on an agriculture robot tractor, and I designed a tool belt for that tractor. So that is an example, right? It is supporting the robot's tasks as it is going up and down the greenhouse, while someone grabs into its tool belt and pulls out a pair scissors. And it is also supporting the robot.
EW (05:14):
Oh, so the tool belt was for the human companion, not for the robot.
NF (05:19):
Right. Supporting their task together. <laugh> But right.
EW (05:24):
It did not seem like robots would like pockets as much as I do.
NF (05:29):
<laugh> Well, often the clothing is made after the robot is made, right? So it is not necessarily programmed for an arm to reach into itself.
EW (05:40):
I saw Simone Giertz did a YouTube video, where she made an arm, a robotic grabby arm, out of stained glass.
NF (05:50):
Oh, wow.
EW (05:51):
And it was very pretty. Although given the tears towards the end when it failed, it seemed very difficult. Are you trying to make things prettier? More approachable? Or more like the utility belt, where you are trying to solve two problems? Or, you are trying to solve the human's problem, not the robot's problem?
NF (06:14):
Mm. I would say that clothes can do a lot of those things. And I try to make it happen for each of those things. So for example, that utility belt, it was going to the Stanford Educational Farm, and the colors for that farm, on their logo, is red. So I made sure that there was that branding on the utility belt.
(06:37):
In this case it was not so protective, but there actually were some holes in the robot that water could get into. So it ended up by accident covering up those holes.
(06:49):
And then aesthetically, yeah, I would say that social signaling through color is an aesthetic choice. But not necessarily pretty. I think it really depends on the context. So for example, maybe Lady Gaga is doing a performance, and she wants to bedazzle her mic to match her costume, right? So I think that that is a case where you want to think a lot about aesthetics.
EW (07:14):
So do you think that beautiful robots will be more alluring to humans, than non-beautiful robots?
NF (07:27):
I think so. I think that there is some risk making robots beautiful, because they might not belong in their environment, right? Like wearing a very fancy dress to a utilitarian environment might look wrong. I prioritize matching the context, more than just being aesthetically beautiful.
EW (07:56):
When should robots wear clothes? It seems silly. I am sorry.
NF (08:03):
That is okay.
EW (08:03):
I know this is your PhD research, but it does seem a little silly that- I have in my mind a robot arm with a tutu on it, which is not what you are talking about.
CW (08:15):
Here I am thinking this is a great idea, because you get used to- Okay, I know this is a little bit off topic, but it is on my mind and I am going to forget. In an industrial situation, you get used to the machinery that is around you, and you might not see it the same way after a few weeks of working with it.
EW (08:31):
Definitely.
CW (08:32):
But if you were to change the appearance of a robot arm periodically, dress it up however you want with a tutu or whatever, you would see that arm. And you would not get so used to it, and perhaps miss something that it was doing incorrect, or decide that you did not see it and it whacks into you. It seems like that would be an application that would be important, of changing visual appearances so that you do not get too complacent with a mechanical environment.
EW (08:59):
Okay.
NF (09:00):
I like that idea. It reminds me of an idea my advisor had one time, about changing the clothes when there is a status update in the software. So just to remind the person, "Hey, this is a new and improved robot."
CW (09:15):
I like that. Yeah.
NF (09:17):
Yeah, what you said. It reminded me of, yeah, changing the appearance for more attention.
CW (09:24):
And it is a good excuse to dress up robots in clothes. <laugh>
NF (09:28):
Right. <laugh>
EW (09:30):
Does it have to be human equivalent clothes? Or is it any covering? What are you focused on?
NF (09:38):
Yeah. I tend to look at the materials and textures and colors that people would wear in the environment, and match those. Rather than thinking, "Oh, it needs to wear eyelashes, to look more like a human."
EW (09:51):
This robot needs pants. It does not have legs, but it still needs pants.
NF (09:55):
<laugh> Needs its pants. Speaking of that, one of the first prototypes that I made for that utility belt, I put a long belt around the whole robot. It got stuck in the plants. <laugh> It did not need the belt, it was just me thinking, "Oh, it needs to wear a belt. It is wearing a utility belt and that is what people wear." So it can be dangerous to take things, shapes and forms, from people and just apply it to robots.
CW (10:28):
Sure.
EW (10:29):
But you are calling them "clothes," and not "enclosures."
NF (10:32):
That is a good point. This has been a really challenging topic, figuring out what to call it. Sometimes I want to call it "fashion," but then my advisor says, "Hey, you are going to alienate all the engineers in a publication <laugh>, if you call it fashion." So "clothes" feels a little bit less, I do not know what the word is...
EW (10:54):
Girlie?
NF (10:57):
Showy, maybe? Yeah, girlie, showy. Yeah.
CW (10:59):
That is a mundane term. It has no- "Clothes" span the gamut from burlap sack to ball gowns.
EW (11:06):
And "fashion" is usually high fashion. Okay. I can see that.
NF (11:09):
Right. And then "coverings" is something that we have considered, and I think that is even more mundane-
CW (11:15):
Yes, I agree.
NF (11:16):
Than "clothes." But there is "casing," right? When you say "enclosure," I think of the casing that goes around the mechanisms in the robot. And I want to think about clothes as removable, to the average person that is not the engineer, right? So when you say "enclosure," I think of the casing that comes with the robot, that is around the robot already.
EW (11:45):
Is part of the goal with dressing robots, making them more anthropomorphic?
NF (11:53):
No. I think that it is really hard to get away from anthropomorphism. But really I am just trying to have the robot fit better into its environment. And maybe protect the robot from dangling wires getting snagged. Or from overheating. Maybe it can insulate the robot too.
EW (12:19):
But those are engineering functions that should be solved with enclosures. <laugh> Go back to that word.
NF (12:26):
I totally agree. But sometimes robots ends up in places that engineers do not expect.
EW (12:30):
True.
NF (12:34):
<laugh> It happens a lot. So I think that clothes can be that last step, solved after the fact, when we watch the robot in the world and see where it ends up.
EW (12:46):
You mentioned the utility belt. What other examples do you have?
NF (12:50):
Things that I have seen out in the world already, during Covid there were karaoke mic coverings that were getting replaced. That is an example of this, right? We did not know what was going to happen. We did not know that Covid was going to happen, right? So that was an aftermarket solution. The mic that Lady Gaga uses during a performance.
(13:15):
I have been thinking about thermochromic ink, and the functions that it could have for robot clothing. So for example, if part of the robot is overheating, we might be able to tell by the color changing.
EW (13:29):
Yes. When the smoke comes out, it is bad.
NF (13:31):
<laugh>
CW (13:32):
Yeah. You can make it turn red and angry.
NF (13:35):
No, that would be really cool.
CW (13:35):
Being anthropomorphic.
NF (13:37):
<laugh>
EW (13:39):
Your degree is an art degree or a computer degree?
NF (13:44):
It is information science. A lot of people that come out of that program tend to be user experience researchers, right? So they have a little bit of knowledge about technology, design and engineering. Information science used to be a degree for librarians. It is so fascinating to me that it covers now both human-robot interaction and library sciences <laugh>.
EW (14:08):
Okay. Those are information. Yes.
NF (14:10):
Yeah.
EW (14:10):
How does robot clothing relate to information?
NF (14:18):
Hmm. That is a great question. Well, there is a lot of information that clothes carry, right? Like, there is all this fashion literature that I have been assigned. There are higher quality materials, right? And that might carry the information that a person is of higher class, because they can afford it. And maybe that would apply to robots too.
EW (14:43):
Absolutely. Think of Apple's cases versus some of the Android cases. They feel more expensive.
CW (14:53):
Do not email us.
NF (14:54):
That is a really good point.
EW (14:55):
<laugh> Yes. Okay, so indicating the robot's status. Indicating the robot owner's status.
NF (15:05):
Right. That is a good point. It is both. <laugh>
EW (15:09):
What else?
NF (15:12):
What other kind of information?
EW (15:14):
Yes.
NF (15:18):
I think clothing can communicate capabilities of robots too. Or maybe enhance the motion. So for example, you might add stripes to a rotating robot, or some kind of swirl, to show everyone that this is moving and kind of enhance that motion.
CW (15:38):
Oh, like on airplane turbines. There is a little-
NF (15:41):
Say more!
CW (15:46):
The next time you look at a plane, at the front end on the engines, there is the turbine and then there is a little, what do they call it, a nose cone or something on the turbine. And they have painted a little swirly on it, so you can see that it is moving. Because when it is moving it is very hard to see the turbine blades. But you can see the swirly on the- God, the swirly on the nose cone. That is all I got.
EW (16:07):
<laugh> Title option there <laugh>.
NF (16:12):
<laugh> Yeah.
EW (16:13):
You mentioned the utility belt, that does indicate that this robot is doing something related to what is in its belt. So you could indicate function.
NF (16:25):
Exactly. And who was using the robot at the time. So maybe when the robot is walking alongside a farmer that is cutting basil, it would have scissors in the tool belt. But maybe when it is walking alongside an electrician who is fixing the robot or something else, it would carry tools for the electrician.
EW (16:47):
What do you want to do with your career after you get a degree?
NF (16:51):
That is a great question. <laugh> I am figuring it out.
EW (16:54):
That is the answer that says, "I do not know."
NF (16:57):
<laugh> I am figuring it out. So one idea I had, was thinking about maybe starting a company or working for someone, who is making clothing for people that have prosthetics. Just because I have been thinking a lot about these questions of making clothing forms for alternative forms.
(17:18):
Also I have the skills to do user experience research. So probably user experience research at some robotics company. Hopefully I can use this knowledge of materials in some way as well. That is where I am at right now. I loved working at this agriculture robotics company, because it meant I got to be outside and smell the basil, <laugh> and interact in the field. That is where I am at right now. It is what I am thinking.
EW (17:52):
What led you to get a PhD?
NF (17:54):
Well, as an undergrad I really liked doing research, because of the way it was just so hands-on. And I always looked up to the PhD students that got to lead the research. My advisor Wendy Ju, she does design research that is very hands-on. So I thought, "Wow, that would be so great to be able to do design, which is something that I love outside of school. And then also research."
EW (18:25):
What did you get your undergrad degree in?
NF (18:28):
Cognitive science.
EW (18:29):
Ah, yes. You said that. I minored in cognitive science. It was really fun.
NF (18:33):
Oh, really? Awesome. That is cool.
EW (18:37):
When you say user experience, I think of my days working on children's toys, where we would get a mockup of what the toy was supposed to do, and then have some parents or kids poke at the toy.
CW (18:54):
At the mockup.
EW (18:54):
At the mockup, and then a person in the room would do the voice that would happen for the toy. And it was incredibly adorable. The whole process was just fantastic. Is that what you mean? Or more large scale?
NF (19:13):
That sounds like so much fun. <laugh> That is what I mean. I think that what you are describing may be a little bit later stage, where you are thinking about specific features. I like to do the early stage stuff, so just figuring out without even a research question in mind or a specific feature in mind, what happens when people are around this robot and they are using it as they would. That is usually early stage questions where you are still thinking about what features should exist to support the people, and what they would already be doing with the robot.
EW (19:50):
A robot in uniform, would seem very different than a robot not in uniform. And a robot in a tutu.
CW (20:00):
What do you think about the robots we tend to see today? There are the all white plasticky security robots-
EW (20:08):
Sleek.
CW (20:08):
And androids that people are trying to make. Honda or Tesla or whatever, they all have these weird white plastic forms that are unadorned. Or heavily industrial robots that do not look like people's conceptions of robots, right?
EW (20:24):
They look like industrial robots.
CW (20:26):
Yes, but...
EW (20:27):
But I mean, there are the wires, and they are usually hooked around, but you can see the struts and the clamps. The enclosures are for the little parts, not the whole big part.
CW (20:37):
Yeah. Right.
NF (20:39):
I would say that they are naked <laugh>. I think that there is a tendency for designers to want their robots to look very sleek, and to require less maintenance overall. If you have clothes, they could get dirty. But again, I think it depends on the context.
(21:00):
So in a restaurant in Japan, for example, I saw the waiters that were robots dressed as the waiters that were people. For that context, I think it makes a lot of sense for the uniforms to be similar.
EW (21:14):
They identify the robot's function in a way we understand.
NF (21:19):
Right, exactly. Did I answer your question? I do not know that I did. <laugh>
EW (21:26):
I do not remember what the question was.
NF (21:28):
<laugh> Okay.
CW (21:31):
I probably derailed that. Sorry.
EW (21:33):
Do you think there is a role for having silly costumes on robots?
NF (21:41):
I do. I think that that can make the robots more approachable, especially to kids. And one could imagine a performance robot being silly. You mentioned Simone Giertz. Her robots are totally silly, right? It is kind of the whole act.
EW (22:03):
Yes. It is the intention.
NF (22:04):
All right. <laugh> I was teaching Girl Scouts how to build robots, and I brought a bunch of crafts with me. I think that the crafting around the robot, made building robots more approachable. I think that sometimes this idea of engineering and robotics can be intimidating to kids, especially girls. Adding this element of something that is familiar, making it silly, can actually make the robots more approachable. And building robots more approachable.
EW (22:40):
Using silliness to teach is fantastic. That is the way I much prefer to learn.
NF (22:46):
I agree.
CW (22:52):
How much of what you think is appropriate, or what people will respond to, is guided by maybe what we have been acclimated to through popular culture? Because sci-fi has robots, right? When people think of robots, people outside of engineering maybe, think of robots, they tend to think of sci-fi robots. And while they might not be clothed, sci-fi robots tend to be heavily designed for aesthetic appearance.
(23:19):
You have C-3PO who is golden, and R2-D2 has a particular set of colors. I think there have been robots with cape- I am trying to think of examples of clothed robots in sci-fi, and I am not coming up with any. I think there has been some with capes, and that is about all I can think of. Unless they are pure androids, and then they are just acting as humans, who happen to be robots, like Data or something.
EW (23:40):
The Dalek, it has a bunch of ornamentation that is not clothing, but also not obviously technically useful.
CW (23:49):
Pointless. Right. Yeah. I guess to distill my question, how much of your thinking is influenced by that? And second level, how much of what you think about doing, is to keep people in that lane where they are expecting things?
NF (24:07):
I think that animation has- What is the word? Animators have this background in character design, so they can make the form exactly as they want, right? And think about the voice and the name and the textures, kind of all together. This is what inspired me to dress robots in the first place. Because there is all this character design that goes into animated characters. But that does not always happen for robots <laugh>. Can you repeat the question?
CW (24:53):
Yeah, and I did not ask it very well.
NF (24:54):
It is okay.
CW (24:56):
I think you did answer most of it there.
NF (24:58):
Okay.
CW (24:59):
Because it is what inspired you to get into it. But I guess, when you are thinking about clothing for a robot, how much are you thinking about the end user and what they are expecting? Versus either subverting those expectations, or doing something that is purely, "Okay, this has a purpose." And it is not purely aesthetic, to line up with a random observer's expectation based on their history?
NF (25:31):
Yeah. I think starting with the user, is usually the best place to start. So really just observing the environment that the robot is going to end up in, with the robot there. Watching those interactions, and then coming up with the design.
(25:47):
I think it might be different for a performance. That is a place where we would want to subvert expectations. I recently saw there was a AI for Good clip with a bunch of different robots, that were supposed to be representing different countries, and different, I guess, values.
(26:07):
They were all wearing different clothes. I think it was Erica the robot, I would have to double check. But, one of them was wearing like a nurse's outfit, and one of them was wearing a totally bedazzled dress. And that was in a way, kind of a performance, right? It is not- They are interacting with each other. And it was for film, right? I think starting with the user when people are going to interact with it. And then thinking about subverting expectations, when you are preparing a robot for performance.
EW (26:43):
The user is the audience? The additional performer? The robot? I mean, who are you, who is the user here?
NF (26:55):
Well, during a performance, I guess the audience? Yes. Anyone that is preparing the robot also. Right? The engineers, the hardware engineers. And any additional actors too.
EW (27:08):
I have been enjoying the Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells, who we had on the show a while ago. Thank you to Ben for noting the Humble Bundle that had all the audio. But SecUnit who is the main character in Murderbot, uses its clothes as a way to hide. It hides behind its mask. When it later loses its helmet, it hides behind the clothes that it uses. And while it mostly hates everything, it does eventually enjoy custom clothes.
NF (27:47):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>
EW (27:48):
Do you think robots want to wear clothing? Do you think robots will want to wear clothing?
NF (27:57):
<laugh> I think if its goal is trying to hide, yes. <laugh>
EW (28:02):
Trying to hide its emotions.
NF (28:04):
Oh, trying to hide its emotion. Okay. I see. I think that the word "want" is a tricky thing, because it really anthropomorphizes the robot, right? It assumes that this robot has some kind of consciousness and desire. I am constantly tempted to use language that anthropomorphizes the robot. Like, I want to say "wire modesty" or "robot comfort."
CW (28:30):
<laugh> Wire modesty <laugh>.
NF (28:36):
<laugh> So if we are thinking about, I guess, trying to reach homeostasis for humans and for robots, and not struggling to work. Robots would want to remain comfortable in temperature, and not get their cable snagged, and not being squashed, right? So maybe if clothes help the robot to maintain its comfort, then yes they would want to wear clothing.
EW (29:05):
Okay. How much of your thesis is on robotics versus psychology versus fashion?
NF (29:15):
`I would say most of it is psychology and fashion. And then usually I have a paragraph at the end of that section that says, "What does this mean for robots?" And then I talk about how each social implication of fashion will affect a robot's function. A lot of it- The intersection of psychology and engineering is design. So I guess I would categorize the thesis as a design thesis, even though I am formally in information science.
CW (29:57):
Can you describe in layman's terms, what your thesis, what the main topic is? You do not have to defend it here, but- <laugh>
NF (30:06):
<laugh>
EW (30:07):
Defend!
CW (30:08):
Defend your thesis.
NF (30:09):
Gosh. Are you my committee? <laugh> Yeah. The official title is "Designing clothing for an improved human-robot interaction." I have three main projects that I am focusing on. One, my design of that utility belt, and what my design process was for it.
(30:31):
The second one is a theoretical framework for all the functions of clothing. Together, art practitioners and researchers came up with what our predictions of clothing for robots could be.
(30:50):
Thirdly, I interviewed anyone that I could find that is already dressing robots. I asked them what their design process was, and then I am sharing that. What the current practices are, compared to those predictions that I made in the previous chapter.
EW (31:09):
Tell me more about the middle one, about the research into clothing.
NF (31:16):
That was the one where I was get getting together with art practitioners and material scientists and engineers, to think about the functions of clothing for robots. Is that the one you are talking about?
EW (31:26):
Yes.
NF (31:26):
Yeah. That was fun. Basically we just had lots of design conversations, about the robots we have seen in the world that are dressed so far. And basically we categorized all of those examples and all of our ideas into three categories, about the functions of clothes for robots that we predicted.
(31:51):
We kept finding that every example would fit into one of these three categories. So the first one was protection, which I have talked about. The second one was social signaling. So that means role, individual identity. And the third one was adaptability. So anything that makes the robot more adaptable into its context.
EW (32:17):
Like putting jacket on a robot so it does not get too cold?
NF (32:20):
Yeah. <laugh> Just like that.
CW (32:24):
Solar reflective blanket, I do not know. Yeah. Okay.
NF (32:27):
<laugh> That works too.
CW (32:29):
Is there a corresponding theory of clothing for humans?
NF (32:35):
Hmm.
EW (32:36):
Talk about signaling. I mean, you mentioned status, and you mentioned uniforms.
CW (32:40):
Yeah. I am sure it is talked about, but I have never heard of it in that concise framing before. It seems like there should be an analog.
EW (32:48):
And does it fall down to the same three principles?
NF (32:56):
It does in so many ways. There are lots of different frameworks. There is one quote that I like about fashion, and it is from a book called "Fashion is Spinach." She basically says that fashion allows you to fit in just enough, and stand out just enough. That kind of represents the social signaling aspect. Yeah, I want to get back to you on a specific framework.
EW (33:33):
Before we get to listener questions, do you have any questions for us?
NF (33:39):
Mm. What is your style?
EW (33:42):
Pajamas.
CW (33:42):
<laugh>
NF (33:42):
<laugh>
EW (33:45):
And flip flops.
NF (33:47):
<laugh>
CW (33:48):
Aah, yeah.
NF (33:49):
Awesome.
EW (33:51):
To be a little more serious, when I am out and about in technical arenas, conferences, I tend to dress more feminine than I would just going to the grocery. Because I can.
NF (34:12):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>
EW (34:13):
Most of the places I go these days, I am speaking, and so there is no- You cannot really discount me because I am a woman. Therefore if I dress as a woman, then people who dress as women maybe will not get discounted just for their dress. Does that make sense?
NF (34:33):
It does. Definitely.
EW (34:34):
So I wear skirts a lot more if I am doing technical things, than otherwise. But I also wear skirts a fair amount to the beach, just because my shorts are dirty <laugh>.
NF (34:49):
Awesome.
EW (34:49):
Do you have a style, Christopher? I mean, other than a large, huge, monstrous collection of Star Wars T-shirts?
CW (34:55):
I think probably standard nerd. Yeah. Jeans, T-shirts. I have been trying to wear more non-message T-shirts. I have a lot of T-shirts that are Star Wars or band T-shirt or some-
EW (35:07):
Embedded T-shirts.
CW (35:08):
Ridiculous, witty thing. Well that is, yeah, I have too many Embedded T-shirts, because we get a lot of our own shirts. I wear a lot of black, but I think that is also standard nerd. The older I get the less I care. We are also beach people, so shorts and T-shirts are fairly common <laugh>.
NF (35:33):
<laugh> Right. You live in Aptos.
CW (35:36):
But I have been starting to discover the benefits of utilitarian things like aprons. Like I have been doing a lot of woodworking, and I was complaining to Elecia that I was getting sawdust all over my clothes. I had to keep segregating my clothes, taking them off before I got into rooms where I do not want sawdust. "Why do not you get an apron?" I am like, "An apron?"
NF (35:58):
<laugh>
EW (35:58):
I am pretty sure he thought it was going to be frilly.
CW (36:02):
They have- I knew about them, but went and looked and, "Oh, aprons with all these tool slots." So I got an apron with all these tool slots, and it is very convenient, and keeps the clothes clean. I have places for hammers and chisels and such. And so, yes utilitarian clothes can be quite nice. <laugh>
NF (36:18):
<laugh> That is great.
EW (36:20):
What about you? Do you have a style?
NF (36:23):
Mm, I like to dress like a scrapbook of lots of styles <laugh>. Often bright colors and fun textures that I find at thrift stores <laugh>. Yeah.
EW (36:42):
Okay. I have a few listener questions.
NF (36:43):
Okay.
EW (36:45):
The first from Andrei from the Great White North, "Have you tried using the recent crop of laser cutters for textiles?"
NF (36:56):
I have not. But I have used a Cricut machine that hobbyists usually use, to create clothes for robots. I found that smaller parts make a lot more sense for the Cricut machine, <laugh> than large part. Otherwise you might as well just cut it, because there is a lot of replacing that has to get done.
EW (37:16):
Yes. The Cricut is great, but you can only do this size or less.
NF (37:22):
Right.
EW (37:22):
11.5 inches.
NF (37:23):
<laugh>
EW (37:23):
It gets old.
NF (37:27):
Right. Agreed.
EW (37:30):
How much do you create the clothing yourself, versus buying something? I do not know, buying a one year old onesie, and then modifying it?
CW (37:39):
How big are these robots, do you think?
EW (37:40):
I do not know. It is going to be baby size, <laugh> in my head.
CW (37:45):
Baby robot.
NF (37:48):
<laugh> I would say half and half. I have actually bought in doll patterns. I made a rain jacket for a doll, and then I put it on a Keepon <laugh>. I do not know if you have seen the little yellow Keepons. That was an effort just to learn how to sew. It is hard to be a PhD student, right, and do engineering design, and then also learn how to sew and be as good as a tailor. So sometimes I have outsourced that work.
EW (38:25):
Sure. Peter wanted to know if robot clothing would be also in the form of magnetic clip-on panels, that could autodetect with the robot so it understood its capabilities, or so that other people could see- As with what Christopher was saying, you maybe put on different magnetic patterns, so that people do not get too accustomed to the robot.
NF (38:53):
I love that idea. I would say, sometimes it can be risky putting magnets on robots, because it can mess with the mechanisms inside. So I think there would have to be a lot of testing.
EW (39:05):
It is not as bad as you would expect.
NF (39:08):
Great.
CW (39:08):
It depends on if they have Hall effect sensors.
EW (39:10):
Yeah. It depends on where you put the magnets, but overall, if you are using the thin film adhesive magnets, it is not a big deal.
CW (39:18):
As I have learned from my Kindle-
EW (39:19):
<laugh>
CW (39:19):
Having magnets in weird places can do confusing things.
NF (39:24):
Oh no. Yeah, I have put magnets on a robot and I just got a lot of sliding, but I think adding adhesive to the back would have been a great idea. <laugh> There was another part to that question. Oh yeah. I actually have seen robots that can sense their clothes. There is a researcher at KTH, her name is Ylva Fernaeus. She made a robot that could sense when it was wearing pajamas, so that it would go to sleep. <laugh> I thought that was so brilliant.
EW (40:00):
That seems like a lot more work than a button.
NF (40:03):
<laugh> It is cute.
CW (40:04):
But it is a lot more fun.
NF (40:05):
But you got the experience of clothing a robot in pajamas.
EW (40:08):
Would not they get old after like the fourth day?
NF (40:10):
<laugh>
CW (40:12):
This is why you are not a parent.
EW (40:13):
Absolutely <laugh>.
NF (40:15):
<laugh>
CW (40:16):
Where is the button, kid? Enough with these pajamas! <laugh>
EW (40:19):
<laugh>
CW (40:19):
It is very fascinating, because I think as robots become more prevalent in people's lives- Well, like Roombas. Have you- People do things to Roombas. Okay. That-
NF (40:37):
They do.
EW (40:38):
That did not come out right. But I mean, ours has googly eyes.
CW (40:41):
Ours has googly eyes. Is that something that you have seen? Or is that part of your research, is seeing what consumers do to consumer robots?
NF (40:51):
Yes. I actually know someone, her name is Elizabeth Goodman, and she wrote an Instructables for dressing your Roomba like a mouse. She thought, "Oh, the Roomba moves like a mouse, so it should dress like a mouse." So she has this Instructables.
(41:08):
I have also seen on Etsy, people were noticing that the robot was ending up under a couch and could not get out. So they were adding little bumpers that you could stick onto your Roomba, so that it would not get stuck under the robot. It is totally brilliant to me.
CW (41:28):
Hmm.
EW (41:30):
Sure. Roombas in particular, tend to form attachments. That went backwards. People tend to form attachments to their Roombas. To their specific Roomba, not to the brand. I mean, Chris Svec has told us that iRobot, sometimes they say, "I do not want a different one. You cannot replace it. You have to fix this one."
NF (41:53):
Mmm.
EW (41:55):
Do you think that people will dress robots more, if they feel- Do you think it will be like dogs? Like little dogs that end up getting dressed, whether they want to or not?
NF (42:07):
<laugh> I think yes. We have definitely seen it with Roombas. I am looking forward to seeing it with more. <laugh>
(42:15):
There was one YouTuber who brings Pepper along in her car, and takes videos of her and Pepper dressed for the day. She calls it "Pepper days." One day they were going in the rain, and that Pepper wore a raincoat. I think she is probably very attached to her a specific Pepper.
EW (42:39):
And Pepper is the robot, not a dog. Just to be clear.
NF (42:42):
Yes. Just to be clear, Pepper is a robot made by SoftBank.
EW (42:45):
Oh.
CW (42:46):
Do you think it is good for robot manufacturers to be trying to make anthropomorphic robots? Again, I will bring up the example of Tesla, which not super a fan of what they are doing there. But there have been Tesla, and was it ASIMO? Honda's ASIMO, is that the right? And there have been others, where people are just trying to make the standard sci-fi android shaped robot. Is that a good idea?
NF (43:17):
I would say no. <laugh> I think that a walking robot does not make as much sense as a rolling robot, right? There are limitations that the form of our body has, that just does not work for a robot. I think that there are also a lot of expectations that come with making a robot look like a person.
(43:38):
For example, if you put ears on a robot, that makes people think that that is where the microphones are. Or that the robot can hear. If you put eyes on a robot, it is the same thing. So I think that there is a risk to it. But I guess again, walking versus rolling might depend on the context that the robot will end up in.
CW (44:02):
On the flip side, Boston Dynamics tends to make robots to look like evil hellhounds. Is that a good idea?
NF (44:09):
<laugh>
EW (44:11):
Yes. Because they are evil hellhounds.
CW (44:13):
Or should they be dressed up in some way, to make them less intimidating?
EW (44:16):
Maybe a little rain jacket, a pink one with a tutu.
CW (44:19):
Well, no. I am be entirely serious here. This is...
EW (44:22):
No, you are right. Should they be less scary?
NF (44:26):
I think if they are going to end up in environments where they are not intimidating people or animals, then yes, they should be less scary. There is this idea of honest anthropomorphism, right? So you put the camera where the eyes are, so people know that the robot is watching, and can see.
(44:48):
I think maybe that this idea could apply to this intimidating movement and form factor from Boston Dynamics. I guess just be honest about what you are going to do via the form. So maybe if they are going to- I mean hopefully they do not hurt anyone, but if they are going to, maybe the form should match that. <laugh>
CW (45:16):
Sure. No <laugh>.
NF (45:18):
<laugh>
CW (45:19):
Going back to sci-fi, there has been plenty of sci-fis where friendly looking robots are actually the evil robots. I suppose they should, in that honesty, they should put the CPU in the head, so that if you had to disable it with a baseball bat, you would know where to hit it.
NF (45:32):
<laugh>
EW (45:32):
Yeah. SecUnit does not keep his brains in his head. So do we want to trust robots? Do we want to anthropomorphize them? Is this just a bad idea? Because they are not-
CW (45:51):
Well I think what she is saying is, doing it for its own sake is not a good idea. Right? Or putting words in your mouth? Sorry.
NF (45:59):
No, it is okay. I think that it all comes back to responsible designers. So if the designers want to be honest with the users, then they should design accordingly. And sometimes that means anthropomorphizing, and sometimes that does not.
EW (46:19):
Okay.
CW (46:19):
You just do not do it thoughtlessly, I guess.
NF (46:21):
Exactly.
CW (46:22):
Which is pretty easy, because I think, again, going back to sci-fi, a lot of designers probably start with, "Oh, it is a robot. Let us make it roboty."
NF (46:32):
<laugh> Yeah. I still accidentally dress robots like people once in a while And then I say, "Shoot, I should not have put that bracelet on the robot. Why did I do that? It just makes noise, and like does not match the context." But it is so easy to say, "Oh, I have a bracelet. I am just going to put it on the robot." <laugh>
EW (46:55):
Going back to the Boston Dynamics hellhound. I do not know its name, but I think that is appropriate. I do not know how you would put clothing on that, in a way that would not inhibit its movement. It looks like that for a reason. Not to intimidate, but because it needs that freedom of movement. I do not know the specifics, maybe you could put pink plastic all over it to make it friendly.
NF (47:25):
<laugh> Yeah. I think that there are options for clothing that are not necessarily fabric. You could put a decal on the robot, to match wherever it is going. I have seen that done with Relay, the robot made by Savioke. The robot goes to hotels, and works at the hotel. It wears a badge, and it wears a bow tie, and it wears the logo of the hotel. So I think that there are ways to avoid inhibiting movement with clothes, without actually putting fabric on the robot.
EW (47:57):
Okay. So clothes does not imply fabric?
NF (48:00):
No, I do not think so.
EW (48:01):
Okay.
NF (48:01):
I would say anything that is removable.
EW (48:05):
And things that are changeable on a frequent basis. Is that a fair analysis?
NF (48:11):
Yeah. I think so. And hopefully by anyone, right? By the user or by the engineer. Like you should not have to have a screwdriver, to take on and off the clothes.
EW (48:21):
Okay.
CW (48:23):
I have an off the wall question for you. Since we have been talking about people interacting with robots. Or things pretending, not pretending, but things that appear to be human or human shaped.
EW (48:32):
Okay.
CW (48:32):
How do you feel about large language models like ChatGPT? And the way that they do not pretend exactly, but the way that they try to-
EW (48:44):
Well, they clearly pretend.
CW (48:45):
Well, the way that their interactions with humans appear to be human-like. That is not exactly a robot. But it is a robot adjacent thing, where humans are interacting with a computer, in a way that a computer is not dressed up exactly, but is pretending or evoking human behavior or appearance.
NF (49:07):
That idea of honest anthropomorphism keeps coming back to my mind <laugh>. I have had an experience before, where someone was using ChatGPT to email me. My trust for him significantly went down, <laugh> because we had been having conversations, and the tone was just so different.
(49:30):
So I think that there is definitely a kind of inauthenticity that comes about with ChatGPT. Were you asking about ChatGPT in relationship to clothes? I am just trying to understand your question.
CW (49:45):
Yeah, well it is kind of an analogy that sprung in my head. We anthropomorphize the appearance of robots. But it feels like with ChatGPT, we are anthropomorphizing...
EW (49:57):
Different input?
CW (49:57):
Information, or the way that a computer speaks. Because the way we used to interact with computers, were with queries and search results that are obviously computers. Or with graphical user interfaces, that are obviously computers.
(50:13):
And now moving it toward, "Oh, we are having a conversation with the computer," and it is acting just like- Well, it sounds like a human. They seem like very parallel concepts to me.
NF (50:25):
I love that. I think that is a great analogy. There has been some studies on politeness, robot politeness <laugh>, where a participant was interacting with a computer and then it asked that person, how did it do. People were more likely to rate it well, when they interacted with that computer, compared to a different one when it was talking about the one it originally talked to. So people want to look good for, or have a connection to, a robot in a way.
(51:05):
It reminds me of that inauthenticity, right? If you say "Hello, I hope you had a good day," to ChatGPT, it will say the same thing back. And that is not real. It does not actually hope that you had a good day. It is just this element of politeness that is completely programmed and is ingenuine. Because machines do not have hopes and desires, I would argue.
CW (51:33):
Yeah. Okay.
NF (51:33):
It is a great analogy.
CW (51:36):
Seems like you are thinking along the same lines, but yeah. We are entering a different world here, where there is a lot of inauthenticity. I liked your honesty approach to it, and I think that needs to be applied in more places.
NF (51:53):
Thanks.
EW (51:53):
But when you go away from android robots, the authenticity, the anthropomorphic authenticity, becomes more difficult. I mean, you could make something look like a bug, and that would indicate where its eyes are, but then it is creepy like a bug.
CW (52:13):
<laugh>
EW (52:15):
And I find mice kind of creepy, so I would not want a Roomba mouse. But you could talk me into a Roomba cuttlefish, pretty easily.
NF (52:28):
Oh, that would be cute. <laugh>
EW (52:31):
The little things would help vacuum. The little tentacles would scoop in. It would look very Cthulhu like, but awesome.
NF (52:40):
I would love to see you do that <laugh>. Yeah, I guess anthropomorphism is a bit more challenging when it is not on a human form. But you put eyes on your Roomba, right? So that may signal that there are cameras in that area. <laugh>
CW (53:03):
Sure. We could have put them near the camera. Yeah.
EW (53:06):
That would be a good idea.
NF (53:08):
<laugh>
CW (53:09):
Yeah. It is a difficult topic, and I am glad that people are thinking about these things in this way. Because I sometimes feel like engineering just goes, "Wa-hah! Here is some stuff. We put it together. You going to buy it?"
EW (53:22):
I have a Hall effect sensor, an IMU, and three motors. What can I build? And then there is no thought of...
CW (53:31):
Yeah.
EW (53:32):
How do I make it good or approachable? I just have the thing. Even if I am solving a particular problem, it is just direct.
CW (53:43):
I feel like the last ten years, design has gone by the wayside. Things have become more utilitarian and flat. I think there is still a place for design, and thinking about how computers and humans interact with each other. Not as friends necessarily <laugh>.
NF (53:59):
<laugh>
EW (53:59):
Definitely not as trusted friends.
CW (54:03):
Yeah.
EW (54:05):
And I am not saying anything about my friends being untrustworthy. That was not an implication. Natalie, it is been really great to talk to you. Do you have any thoughts you would like to leave us with?
NF (54:16):
Oh yeah. Okay. My last thought is, the best thing that you can wear is a smile.
CW (54:23):
Unless you are a robot, and you are not really happy.
NF (54:26):
<laugh> I am talking to people right now <laugh>.
CW (54:27):
<laugh>
EW (54:29):
Or you are a robot, and you do not have a mouth.
CW (54:32):
I have no mouth and I cannot smile. <laugh> Sorry.
EW (54:37):
Our guest has been Natalie Friedman, Information Science PhD candidate at Cornell Tech.
CW (54:43):
Thanks Natalie. This was fascinating.
NF (54:45):
Thanks so much.
EW (54:46):
Thank you to Christopher for producing and co-hosting. Thank you to our Patreon listener Slack group for questions. And thank you for listening. You can always contact us at show@embedded.fm or hit the contact link on embedded.fm.
(54:59):
And now a quote to leave you with. Let us go with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. '"Do not blame you," said Marvin, and counted five hundred and ninety-seven thousand million sheep before falling asleep a second later.'