Laurence Devillers
Laurence Devillers (born 8 October 1962, in Châtillon-sur-Seine, France) is a professor of artificial intelligence & ethics at Paris-Sorbonne University since 2011 and at Computer science laboratory for mechanics and engineering sciences (LIMSI) at the Scientific Research National Center, a head of the team "Affective and social dimension in spoken interaction". Devillers has taken part in several national and European projects on human-robots social and affective interactions. She leads a cluster of robots-human co-evolution at the Institute of Digital Society and "Robotic interactive" at Paris-Saclay.
Quotes
[edit]- All of my work focuses on the idea that we need to keep a boundary between humans and robots. But Google is blurring the lines with this voice. It opens the door to unethical applications. The voice is what’s easiest to imitate for the moment, from a technological standpoint. It’s possible to trick the person who doesn’t know who they’re communicating with. You can make someone say things they never said. You can even make the dead speak. It’s a breach of trust.
- As soon as we hear a machine speak, it’s implied that the machine understands. That it has the capacity of a human. Which is not the case. For example Sophia from Hanson Robotics speaks in a way that is semantically coherent but she is following a script, she’s absolutely not autonomous, she has no desires or intentions. She’s a marionette. Engineers have given her a scripted dialog. Machine learning allows for learning from data, but without understanding. This machine has nothing to do yet with a living embryo.
- Yes, my point of view is utilitarian and functional. Robots have a lot to offer us. When I see the percentage of the population that will be elderly in the next few years, it’s clear that we won’t have enough working people to look after them. So it could be interesting to have a robot in charge of monitoring these people when they are at the end of their lives for example. So robots are useful but we have to be aware that they should complement humans and not replace humans.
- The goal is not to replace the human. The machine is, for the moment, incapable of this. Our robots are not very precise yet. We are making more cognitive advances than physical ones. Mechatronics are going to need a lot more research. Making entirely humanoid robots remains complicated.
- We first need a certain set of ethics for designers, which is why researchers are in the loop. Then we need to give people the ability to understand the system they’re using. I’m part of a nudging project that aims to explain gently to people. We’ll also need to teach robotics at school so children can have perspective when it comes to questions of artificial intelligence and robotics. And then we’ll need legal rules. In the same way that there’s a committee who decides whether a medicinal product is put on the market or not, we’ll need an ethical committee who validates a robot or not before its market launch. But not everything should be constrained by ethical reasoning. We can do business that’s ethical and responsible. When I say ethics, I’m not talking about philosophy. I’m talking about making machines that respect our values. We have to ask ourselves how these new robots harbor a danger for humans and accordingly how we can regulate it.
- We understand ethics when it comes to data, this is why we need the new GDPR regulations. But when it comes to co-evolution with machines we aren’t talking about what changes it will lead to in terms of inter-human relations. Psychiatrists are interested in this question but the world of technology isn’t yet. Certain manufacturers I work with such as Softbank Robotics [who make the robots Pepper and Nao] are starting to understand the idea of ethics. But we still need to find a compromise between ethics and business. We need to agree together on a system of human values that will be respected by the robots who interact with us.
- Each country has its own values and robots should comply with the values of the country they are in, kind of like labor laws.
- Yes, I think that this is where Europe and also the United States can make a difference. Maybe the price will be the main argument for someone buying a robot. But maybe there will also be an ethical aspect that will influence their choice of one robot over another. For this we need to make ethics “fashionable”.
- Firstly, it is unconscionable to want to try to reproduce a human as we can easily deceive and manipulate. Here I am targeting for example Google Home and Sophia. Next we must be careful with attachment and empathy. If we live with machines all the time, there will be consequences on our relationships with others. Then there will be a division between those who have access to this technology and understand it and those who don’t. We are widening the gap of technological inequality, and long-term it’s anti-democratic.
- I suggest a COP [conference of parties] be held on artificial intelligence. It is urgent that we take an interest in the repercussions of what we’re doing. It’s our responsibility!
