
MIT study finds that human subjects prefer when robots give the orders - sgy
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/want-happy-worker-let-robots-take-control
======
rraval
I spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to find the actual paper (it's
in the right corner under "Related", I blame banner blindness!)

Link for others like me [PDF]:
[http://interactive.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Gom...](http://interactive.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Gombolay_RSS_2014.pdf)

------
gress
Another dis-informational headline. The press can be excused for this, but MIT
should know better.

More realistically, 'when working with machines to do repetitive manual work,
people prefer not to have to think so much.'

------
exceptione
I found it interesting. It would be nice to know more about the subjects in
this test. It might be that science students would be more at ease with
autonomously behaving robots than the avarage factory worker, so I hope they
didn't just ask students from the department to volunteer.

~~~
nopinsight
Your suspicion is confirmed. Most participants are within or closely connected
to MIT. They seem to use rigorous math for hypothesis testing, but if the
personality and other characteristics of the participants are not
representative, their results may not apply to the general public.

I wonder why they did not cast their net wider, e.g. advertise in the Boston
Globe, and statistically account for differing backgrounds, which is a pretty
standard methodology in social science research.

From the actual paper:
[http://interactive.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Gom...](http://interactive.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Gombolay_RSS_2014.pdf)

 __> The participants (14 men and 10 women) had an average age of 27 ± 7 years
(minimum and maximum ages were 20 and 42) and were recruited via email and
fliers distributed around a university campus. __

------
tekalon
Robots also don't play favorites or office politics. If there is a more
efficent/better way, it will do it. Even better when it is allowed to re-
calculate with new parameters.

~~~
electromagnetic
The issue with this is the efficient way is not always the better way.

If you keep assigning the same menial and crappy task to a worker because they
get it done quick, yay efficiency! Except if you're asking the same worker to
clean the bathrooms three times a day every day, it's not going to take long
before he goes "fuck this, I'm going to work somewhere else!"

The robot will assign the next most efficient person, who's going to be right
on the train out too and so will everyone who sees it coming. So you'll either
end up with people gaming the system and slacking, or you'll end up with an
empty business.

People might like the idea of robots because they don't play favourites or
office politics. However, I'm willing to bet that people are going to hate
that same robot really quick because it doesn't play favourites or office
politics.

If you know you can always count on Joe to cover a shift, if he comes and asks
you a human for a day off and you know it'll leave you short staffed for a
day. Would you? Yes, because you _know_ the 99 other days you're going to end
up short staffed you won't because you've got Joe. You know if you say no that
you'll be short staffed those other 99 days because Joe's going to make sure
he's busy laying on the couch eating cheerios watching jeopardy because you
pissed him off.

The worst managers I've personally faced are either the ones that blame
everyone else, or the ones who are there to "do a job and not make friends".
The latter is the robot.

~~~
hayksaakian
All of the logic and anecdotes you presented could be computerized.

Retention is something you could optimize for in the long term.

Reliability for covering shifts is a number too.

I think you're right on a small scale, humans can make generally reasonable
judgement calls with little data.

If you think about the future though, if a big corp can optimize middle
management robots with 100,000 employees worth of data, they probably will.

------
mrjayharris
Interacting with robots is often easier and simpler than interacting with
people. Now that AI is on the cusp of being able to replace not just manual
workers, but knowledge workers of all types, even those service jobs that have
always seemed safe in the face of automation are in danger of dying out.
Especially in light of evidence like this that people actually prefer robots
to humans in many of those situations.

~~~
gress
It's easier than interacting people who are stressed or under duress - which
is usually the case with service jobs. In any case it seems that you didn't
read the piece, since it says absolutely nothing about these situations.

------
brunorsini
immediately thought of manna - [http://www.amazon.com/Manna-Two-Visions-
Humanitys-Future-ebo...](http://www.amazon.com/Manna-Two-Visions-Humanitys-
Future-
ebook/dp/B007HQH67U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408928580&sr=8-1&keywords=manna).

(FWIW, don't think it has aged too well)

~~~
deciplex
I liked it, although I was annoyed at the end after the author spent an entire
chapter sermonizing about the developed world's failure to help out the
developing world. And what do they do, after they end up in Aus, to help out
people still stuck in a dystopian nightmare? Well, fuck all, as it turns out.

------
pessimizer
It's because many people don't second guess the motives or robots, just like
in the past when they wouldn't second guess 'facts' that were professionally
printed in newspapers and books.

I think it will eventually become anachronistic the more deeply people
understand that the people who dictate a robot's behavior are just like they
are, and have motives that are just as suspicious as anyone else's.

------
atmosx
Fellow stranger... While reading the comments on this thread, you have to keep
in mind that HN crowd is a highly computer-oriented crowd, who has faith in
computers & algorithms.

ps. When someone will be able to write an algorithm to simulate/predict the
perception of a specific/targeted human at 99,9% of cases, then I might take
seriously into consideration the idea of letting a robot run a factory.

------
lightblade
We let robots give order all the time. The traffic light is one example.

~~~
sgy
The research is related to artificial intelligence, not pure automation.

~~~
KonoHito
I think it's a fine line. The article did mention that the robots were guided
by an algorithm, and traffic lights are, too, controlled by algorithms, so
what's to say this situation isn't the same as following traffic lights?

~~~
meric
Also it's possible to have traffic lights that vary the frequency of its light
changes depending on the traffic on each side of the intersection.

------
frade33
This could be because, robots don't have ego or feel proud in giving an
order., they don't have emotions too. So for human this is just a message
received to act upon. than the 'order' given by a human in a tone which varies
depending on his emotions. For instance if someone gives an order in an angry
tone, it could be humiliating to his subordinate., so let these robots give
orders in a rude tone and see the consequences for yourself :)

------
kazinator
An example of a robot which gives people orders, in the sense of generating
stimuli to which correct responses are required, is a video game, and those
are shown to be addictive.

The next Tetris block that is about to fall is essentially a robot's order:
when you're done with that one, place this one somewhere!

------
gremlinsinc
This is just preparing us for the post terminator world :)

------
robotsarecoming
Less Wrong told me this day would come.

This is robot written propaganda! You've all heard of them writing articles.
Now look at the consequences.

~~~
colanderman
Please don't make novelty accounts on HN.

------
f4stjack
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...

~~~
jdrago999
I came here to say this.

