Abstract
Artificial stupidity has been reported in multiple computer science applications. This phenomenon can appear in two ways: artificial stupidity by accident is the result of artificial intelligence failures, whereas artificial stupidity by design is an intended development with a purpose. However, these concepts have not been studied in the context of robotics. This paper analyzes artificial stupidity in robotics, searching to answer the question: “Is artificial stupidity something that we must avoid or, on the contrary, something that can be useful for us?” It addresses the definition of the artificial stupidity problem and analyzes some potential methods to solve it.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Falk, M.: Artificial stupidity. Interdisc. Sci. Rev. 46(1–2), 36–52 (2021)
Murphy, C.M., Koehler, G.J., Fogler, H.R.: Artificial stupidity. J. Portf. Manag. 23(2), 24 (1997)
Rich, A.S., Gureckis, T.M.: Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(4), 174–180 (2019)
Umbrello, S., Yampolskiy, R.V.: Designing AI for explainability and verifiability: a value sensitive design approach to avoid artificial stupidity in autonomous vehicles. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 14(2), 313–322 (2022)
Trazzi, M., Yampolskiy, R. V. : Building safer AGI by introducing artificial stupidity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.03644 (2018)
Trazzi, M., Yampolskiy, R.V.: Artificial stupidity: data we need to make machines our equals. Patterns 1(2), 100021 (2020)
Lidén, L. : Artificial stupidity: the art of intentional mistakes. AI Game Program. wisdom 2, 41–48 (2003)
Lo, A.W.: Why artificial intelligence may not be as useful or as challenging as artificial stupidity (2019)
Wang, W., Siau, K.: Artificial intelligence, machine learning, automation, robotics, future of work and future of humanity: a review and research agenda. J. Database Manage. (JDM) 30(1), 61–79 (2019)
Károly, A.I., Galambos, P., Kuti, J., Rudas, I.J.: Deep learning in robotics: survey on model structures and training strategies. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 51(1), 266–279 (2020)
Kleeberger, K., Bormann, R., Kraus, W., Huber, M.F.: A survey on learning-based robotic grasping. Curr. Robot. Rep. 1(4), 239–249 (2020)
Zhao, W., Queralta, J. P., Westerlund, T. : Sim-to-real transfer in deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey. In 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), pp. 737–744. IEEE (2020)
Fang, B., Jia, S., Guo, D., Xu, M., Wen, S., Sun, F.: Survey of imitation learning for robotic manipulation. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl. 3(4), 362–369 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41315-019-00103-5
Honig, S., Oron-Gilad, T.: Understanding and resolving failures in human-robot interaction: Literature review and model development. Front. Psychol. 9, 861 (2018)
León Rivas, J. D.: Dynamic analysis of the alternating tripod gait of a hexapod robot with C-legs, Doctoral dissertation, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (2020)
Rossi, A., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., Walters, M.L.: How the timing and magnitude of robot errors influence peoples’ trust of robots in an emergency scenario. In: Social Robotics. ICSR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10652. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_5
Tian, L., Oviatt, S.: A taxonomy of social errors in human-robot interaction. ACM Trans. Human-Robot Inter. (THRI) 10(2), 1–32 (2021)
Washburn, A., Adeleye, A., An, T., Riek, L.D.: Robot errors in proximate HRI: how functionality framing affects perceived reliability and trust. ACM Trans. Human-Robot Inter. (THRI) 9(3), 1–21 (2020)
Kim, S. K., Kirchner, E. A., Schloßmüller, L., Kirchner, F. : Errors in human-robot interactions and their effects on robot learning. Front. Robot. AI 131, 558531 (2020)
Evjemo, L.D., Gjerstad, T., Grøtli, E.I., Sziebig, G.: Trends in smart manufacturing: role of humans and industrial robots in smart factories. Curr. Robot. Rep. 1(2), 35–41 (2020)
Matheson, E., Minto, R., Zampieri, E.G., Faccio, M., Rosati, G.: Human-robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: a review. Robotics 8(4), 100 (2019)
Sherwani, F., Asad, M.M., Ibrahim, B.S.K.K.: Collaborative robots and industrial revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0). In: 2020 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Smart Technologies (ICETST), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2020)
Li, P., Liu, X.: Common sensors in industrial robots: a review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1267(1), 012036 (2019). IOP Publishing (2019)
De Pace, F., Manuri, F., Sanna, A., Fornaro, C.: A systematic review of augmented reality interfaces for collaborative industrial robots. Comput. Ind. Eng. 149, 106806 (2020)
Gonzalez-Aguirre, J.A., et al.: Service robots: trends and technology. Appl. Sci. 11(22), 10702 (2021)
Roldán, J.J., Peña-Tapia, E., Garcia-Aunon, P., Del Cerro, J., Barrientos, A.: Bringing adaptive and immersive interfaces to real-world multi-robot scenarios: application to surveillance and intervention in infrastructures. IEEE Access 7, 86319–86335 (2019)
Yan, Z., Jouandeau, N., Cherif, A.A.: A survey and analysis of multi-robot coordination. Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst. 10(12), 399 (2013)
Khamis, A., Hussein, A., Elmogy, A.: Multi-robot task allocation: a review of the state-of-the-art. Coop. Robots Sensor Netw. 2015, 31–51 (2015)
Yang, L., Qi, J., Song, D., Xiao, J., Han, J., Xia, Y. : Survey of robot 3D path planning algorithms. J. Control Sci. Eng. 2016, 7426913 (2016)
Rahman, Q.M., Corke, P., Dayoub, F.: Run-time monitoring of machine learning for robotic perception: a survey of emerging trends. IEEE Access 9, 20067–20075 (2021)
Kroemer, O., Niekum, S., Konidaris, G.D.: A review of robot learning for manipulation: challenges, representations, and algorithms. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22(1), 1395–1476 (2021)
Jin, L., Li, S., Yu, J., He, J.: Robot manipulator control using neural networks: A survey. Neurocomputing 285, 23–34 (2018)
Muhammad, A., Ali, M.A., Shanono, I.H.: Path planning methods for mobile robots: a systematic and bibliometric review. ELEKTRIKA-J. Electr. Eng. 19(3), 14–34 (2020)
Masehian, E., Sedighizadeh, D.: Classic and heuristic approaches in robot motion planning-a chronological review. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 23(5), 101–106 (2007)
Hwang, Y.K., Ahuja, N.: Gross motion planning-a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 24(3), 219–291 (1992)
Atyabi, A., Powers, D. : Review of classical and heuristic-based navigation and path planning approaches. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Technol. (IJACT) 5(14), 14 (2013)
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank some interesting natural stupidities who have crossed his way and inspired this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Roldán-Gómez, J.J. (2023). Artificial Stupidity in Robotics: Something Unwanted or Somehow Useful?. In: Tardioli, D., Matellán, V., Heredia, G., Silva, M.F., Marques, L. (eds) ROBOT2022: Fifth Iberian Robotics Conference. ROBOT 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 590. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21062-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21062-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21061-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21062-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)