It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how hard the robot is working.
A Cornell-led team has found that when robots are beating humans in contests for cash prizes, people consider themselves less competent and expend slightly less effort – and they tend to dislike the robots.
The study, “Monetary-Incentive Competition Between Humans and Robots: Experimental Results,” brought together behavioral economists and roboticists to explore, for the first time, how a robot’s performance affects humans’ behavior and reactions when they’re competing against each other simultaneously.
Their findings validated behavioral economists’ theories about loss aversion, which predicts that people won’t try as hard when their competitors are doing better, and suggests how workplaces might optimize teams of people and robots working together.
“Humans and machines already share many workplaces, sometimes working on similar or even identical tasks,” said Guy Hoffman, assistant professor in the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Hoffman and Ori Heffetz, associate professor of economics in the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, are senior authors of the study, which will be presented March 11 at the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction in Daegu, South Korea.
“Think about a cashier working side-by-side with an automatic check-out machine, or someone operating a forklift in a warehouse, which also employs delivery robots driving right next to them,” Hoffman said. “While it may be tempting to design such robots for optimal productivity, engineers and managers need to take into consideration how the robots’ performance may affect the human workers’ effort and attitudes toward the robot and even toward themselves. Our research is the first that specifically sheds light on these effects.”
Alap Kshirsagar, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering, is the paper’s first author. Bnaya Dreyfuss and Guy Ishai, economics graduate students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, also contributed.
In the study, humans competed against a robot in a tedious task – counting the number of times the letter G appears in a string of characters, and then placing a block in the bin corresponding to the number of occurrences. The person’s chance of winning each round was determined by a lottery based on the difference between the human’s and robot’s scores: If their scores were the same, the human had a 50 percent chance of winning the prize, and that likelihood rose or fell depending which participant was doing better.
To make sure competitors were aware of the stakes, the screen indicated their chance of winning at each moment.
For the behavioral economists, the study offered an opportunity to test theories about loss aversion in a controlled setting; the effort of two humans in competition can’t be controlled, but a robot’s effort can. It also showed how loss aversion might affect humans’ effort in a simultaneous competition, which had not been previously studied.
“The beauty of this project is that it is the birth of a true collaboration across engineering and economics – one of the things Cornell is good at,” said Heffetz, who is also an associate professor of economics at the Hebrew University. “We tried to find questions that interest both crowds, and then we tried to design an experiment that gets the economics right, and is feasible from a human-robot interaction point of view.”
After each round, participants filled out a questionnaire rating the robot’s competence, their own competence and the robot’s likability. The researchers found that as the robot performed better, people rated its competence higher, its likability lower and their own competence lower.
“We were surprised that people found themselves less competent against a fast, competitive robot, even though there’s no direct interaction,” Kshirsagar said. “The robot is doing its own work, you’re doing your own work.”
Most participants did not seem to anthropomorphize the robot, with comments including, “I sort of realized, I am just competing with an idea of mechanization, and the arm is just a prop to signify it”; though one participant wrote, “It was obvious when the robot was going easy on me.” In fact, the robot’s efforts varied by round but did not change within each round.
Researchers were surprised that the value of the cash prize did not appear to significantly influence people’s efforts, though previous experiments suggested people would try harder as the value rose.
The researchers plan to explore the reason for that in future work, but said participants may have been so focused on winning they didn’t care about the actual prize value.
The Latest on: Human-robot competition
via Google News
The Latest on: Human-robot competition
- Evangelist Demagogue, 1952 Model:Both Sides of the Coinon March 26, 2020 at 6:37 pm
Today, still billed as “I Was Stalin’s Agent,” Goff has been forced into the Mountain and Plains States’ Bible Belt by the competition of other hate ... Is it really possible for the human robot of ...
- IDTechEx report says coronavirus is pushing logistics automation to the forefronton March 25, 2020 at 2:46 pm
These robots boost productivity and enable many hybrid human-robot interaction modes. The IDTechEx report forecasts that more than 200K robots could be sold within the 2020–2030 period. Next the ...
- What Happens When a Samurai Trains a Sword-Wielding Robot?on March 21, 2020 at 4:06 pm
Here’s a story about how humanity is seemingly hellbent on creating sword-wielding robots. Shocking? Yes, but the video evidence chronicles our repeated efforts to do just that. Like a father ...
- Researchers develop robot for autistic children to learn.on February 28, 2020 at 10:04 am
The purpose of the study is to build robots that are smarter for improved human-robot interaction and enhance children's learning experience. (ANI) ...
- Robots Are Collaborators, Not Competitionon November 12, 2019 at 2:40 pm
But advanced robotics will bring countless benefits to our economy, health, and quality of life. Our future is one of human-robot co-evolution, and the center is working to make that future as ...
- Stop Me if You've Heard This One: A Robot and a Team of Irish Scientists Walk Into a Senior Living Homeon October 24, 2019 at 6:25 am
In contrast, ethicists who see potential for positive human-robot encounters argue that ... and work their butts off…they see this [as] competition.” Neither Stevie’s creators nor Knollwood ...
- Making a social impacton September 3, 2019 at 12:19 pm
They designed and developed social robot behaviours, human-robot interactions ... While RoboCup is a competition and lots of fun, it’s also a teaching and learning experience that was designed ...
- Getting your Head Around Adding AMRs into Operationson August 8, 2019 at 12:42 pm
and human-robot collaboration. In an interview with Machine Design, she discussed the current state of AMR deployment in manufacturing, the barriers to adoption, and what should get designers ...
- It’s a real drag when robots beat us at gameson March 12, 2019 at 10:42 am
It also showed how loss aversion might affect humans’ effort in a simultaneous competition ... at the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction in Daegu, South Korea.
- IEEE Robotics and Automation Award Recipientson April 14, 2018 at 1:20 pm
He was the faculty advisor and system architect of the Cornell Robot Soccer Team, four-time world champions at the international RoboCup competition ... set the standard for the use of vision in human ...
via Bing News