Although Sony sold 150,000 of the Aibo robotic dogs, that wasn’t enough for the transnational consumer electronics titan.

For a smaller firm, selling that many units of a product that retails for well over $1,500 would be a roaring success.

Likewise, the Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner, while increasingly popular, is widely acknowledged as unable to perform vacuuming as well as a conscientious maid.

At the University of Hertfordshire, professor of artificial intelligence Kerstin Dautenhahn now believes the development of robots, to date, has been skewed. He opines, “For a long time people thought the summit of human intelligence was our capacity for problem solving, IQ tests and the like. So in developing robots they designed them to do these complex tasks, like playing chess.”

“But now,” he continues, “people are saying that its humans’ ability to deal with complex social relationships that’s made us intelligent. Primatologists suggest this is what has made us smarter.”

Programming this set of skills has proved to be a multidisciplinary challenge. At Hertfordshire they have established a research program involving 700 people as test subjects.

They are asking questions like, “What’s the best way for a robot to interrupt you if you are reading a newspaper — by gesturing with its arms, blinking its lights or making a sound?”

The intent is to identify what kinds of behaviors people find acceptable and preferable in robots. For instance, it can be established that a certain physical distance is preferable when speaking face to face. However, researchers acknowledge that this distance is culture-specific. Even worse, it is possible that people will have difference preferences when it comes to robots than with fellow humans. All of this needs to be researched.

In effect, according to Professor Chris Melhuish of Bristol Robotics Laboratory, agrees. Robots must behave in ways that display proper emotional sensitivity even though they lack real emotions.

The researchers have already made some interesting discoveries. For example, a significant minority of people aren’t comfortable having robots remain nearby for long periods of time.

Some are fearful of robots going out of control, becoming destructive.

In my view, the problem is simply one of trial and error. Personal robots (as contrasted to industrial ones, whose acceptance is limited solely by cost factors) are an entirely new kind of product: One that assumes functions and roles previously limited to humans.

Initial sales have largely been due to the novelty value. For sustainable mass-market penetration, robots will have to perform tasks more reliably and less expensively than people, and do so without seeming threatening.

This is definitely coming, as the componentry in robots will be inexpensive when mass-produced. The high cost of production that today costs a robotic dog to retail for over $1,500 is largely due to recapturing retail and distribution costs.

In the future, core elements of household robots will be off-the-shelf. A company contemplating manufacture of a new robot will purchase actuators and mobility components from suppliers that specialize in robotic assemblies.

The AI software will still be unique and proprietary. However, it too will benefit from core components that eventually become standard, much as nearly all-new PC applications now build off Microsoft Windows or Linux operating systems.

In addition, while it may be toughest to solve and take decades to perfect, I consider the sociability factor overblown. Here’s why…

As the years pass, an ever-larger percentage of the population will have grown up with robots in their midst. For such customers, the robot will simply have to function more reliably and less expensively than a human to be a preferable choice. They will not expect “their” robots to act like people.

Consider a near-term option. If you’ve purchased fast food at a takeout window recently, you may have discovered only too late that the condiments or even the order itself were wrong.

That’s been my experience more often than not, and my “solution” has been to inspect the order before driving off. Of course, that delays the process for everyone in line, which makes this option less desirable.

At such times, I’ve fantasized about replacing the incompetent workers with robots. There’s an old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”

In his e-book Manna (available for free download at http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm), former computer science professor Marshall Brain (author of How Stuff Works) articulates how robots will probably soon infiltrate and overwhelm the work force, starting with fast food chains. (Note: It’s already started with a fast food chain in the South.)

The social consequences of his carefully reasoned and gripping treatise are breathtaking. Be forewarned: You will not rest easy after reading this book. But I still recommend it. In investing and in life, ostriches don’t prosper.

By the way, if you start reading Manna, don’t stop. It ends on a note of surprising hope. There’s also hope from robotic-related investing. Change this massive will create wealth opportunities to rival the software revolution.

I am following several robotics firms right now with an eye to investing.

To your profitable future,
Jonathan Kolber
March 14, 2007

P.S.: Penny Stock Fortunes is back and better than ever, delivering you the growth stocks the mainstream media’s not talking about.

Investing in Robotic Technology was originally featured in the Penny Sleuth.