The critically acclaimed television series 30 Rock has one episode in which variety show host Tracy Jordan plans to create a pornographic video game. Frank Rossitano, a writer in this fantasy of what happens behind the scenes at a Saturday Night Live–like comedy show, informs Jordan that the game would surely flop because of something called the uncanny valley. He even produces a graph to demonstrate why failure is all but inevitable.
The uncanny valley has kindled debate among roboticists for more than 35 years—and more recently computer graphics jocks have joined this ongoing discussion about whether their creations will end up scaring people. Envisaged in 1970 by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, the concept implies that whereas cartoonish or other abstract human figures draw immediate empathy, robots or animations that appear similar to humans (but not identical) provoke a sense of unease.
In an otherwise human-looking robot or animation, a stilted arm or eye movement—or perhaps a halting gesture in landing a kiss in Tracy Jordan’s porn game—creates an eerie sensation. This feeling is represented by a sharp dip on a graph, an “uncanny valley” in which the observer’s comfort level with the artificial character diminishes drastically. In Mori’s view, a full ascent out of the valley occurs only when robots become indistinguishable from humans.
Mori recommended that robot designers should avoid queasy reactions altogether by building robots that are not human facsimiles, an idea that has sometimes been adopted as a de facto design principle among roboticists. Despite his warnings, designers have ignored his entreaty. They can now build robotic heads or bodies covered by skin realistic enough to at least briefly fool humans [see “Android Science,” by Tim Hornyak; Scientific American, May 2006]. The silicone layer that produces this convincing effect has, in fact, become the stuff of $6,500 sex dolls.
As robots have begun to catch up with their masters, researchers have started to ask whether the uncanny valley actually exists. Mori’s graph was not based on experimental data—and recent studies mapping out responses to humanlike robots have produced conflicting results. David Hanson of Hanson Robotics in Richardson, Tex., has found that people’s varying reactions to an anthropomorphic robot or animation does not depend on the level of realism; instead it hinges on whether a robot’s appearance has an inherently creepy aesthetic. Frankenstein’s monster elicited a repellent reaction not because of an overwhelming human likeness but simply because the monster was just plain ugly. Intentionally steering clear of realistic human forms, as Mori suggested, offers no protection. “A Disney villain or cartoon can be very abstract and still unsettling,” Hanson says.
The uncanny valley may not be an exact representation of people’s perceptions of the bizarre, but a few studies provide some basis for Mori’s intuitions. As researchers have conducted experiments in search of the valley, they have found that as a robot or animation grows more realistic, the latitude that designers have to change the size of, say, the eyes or the head decreases greatly. “As you come closer to building robots that look more human, there is a narrowing of the range of forms that would still be acceptable,” says Karl MacDorman, an Indiana University professor, who attributes these reactions to innate aversions to traits that might be linked with ill health or lack of fertility.
The science of aesthetics is about to grow more complex as humans choose to morph themselves. “How will we behave when people are not quite right, not because of behavioral or physical problems but because of behavioral or physical enhancements?” asks Jamais Cascio, a consultant to the Institute for the Future. Prosthetics and genetic engineering may affect appearance; even now the work of cosmetic surgeons can yield an unease reminiscent of the valley. One blogger placed Madonna—after requisite face-lifts, Botox injections and photo retouching—at the exact spot on Mori’s graph once occupied by the handicapped, which is near the bottom of the valley (but usually replaced today by a prosthetic hand for political correctness). Robots, humans, who knows, maybe even Mickey Mouse, all appear headed for Mori’s big pothole.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add Comment...missing the point. uncanny valley has nothing to do with beauty or the lack there of, nor of scary grotesque horror. It's that creepy feeling when you see something that looks like it should behave like a human...but for some strange reason it just doesn't...something you can't quite put your finger on. Now THATS creepy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...missing the point. uncanny valley has nothing to do with beauty or the lack there of, nor of scary grotesque horror. It's that creepy feeling when you see something that looks like it should behave like a human...but for some strange reason it just doesn't...something you can't quite put your finger on. Now THATS creepy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I certainly would be more comfortable with a iRobot style robot that had the advantages of being human-like in motion capabilities, but clearly not human. Also I think a successful general purpose robot that was smaller than average human would appear less threatening. Naturally there will be a market for very realistic robots, but I think it will remain specialized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, here's how see it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The "Data" character from the star trek series was a fan favorite, because he WAS very much human. In "Lost in Space" the robot looked very machine-like, but was accepted as a member of the crew or the family, because it sounded like a human or had human traits. We also seem to love animals that perform human behaviors. I believe humans do not like things that slither or crawl upon the floors or walls, much like bugs or snakes would. Think of "Robocop" or even "Terminator" The terminator was a bad guy but you liked it. In the old Jonny Quest cartoon series, They had a giant robot spider thing with one cycloptic eye, making for an unacceptable figure. It was evil because it didn't look human. You have to go back to early stories and early films to see other examples of what would be acceptable or unacceptable. In "The Day the Earth Stood Still" we are creeped out by Klatu, because he is formless. A straight flat body and head with no discerning characteritstics. He had no nose, eyes or mouth. No ears, hair, or knees. He was 'void' of any human features, therefore he was frightening. We need to study this subject more, dig deeper into what makes humans afraid of things that don't look like them, and why we love and trust things that do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnything which is just "slightly wrong" is inclined to induce unease. That isn't limited to appearance or behaviour of human analogues. The reason behind this is an obvious evolutionary advantageous trait too. eg becoming alert when a predator camoflague just fails to be indisguishiable to the background.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing hollywood footage is not an answer to me. We must remember that those people were payed to act in a certain way. Even if the robot creeps you out, a laugh track might tell you to feel other wise. I believe our inability to read the motives, especially in facially muscles and or body language causes some warning signal, and puts us on guard. Our genes say to kind to those of like and wary of those unlike. Robots don't wear jeans now thats creepy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think using hollywood footage is the answer. People in film are paid to portray an image regardless of their true feelings. A laugh track can tell you to accept some very creepy stuff. I think that the inability to determine motive through facial expression and body language are a big part of the creep factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this