However, researchers in the USA are finding that in some cases, operators have started to treat their robots like pets, friends, or even as an extension of themselves. That raises the question: if a soldier attaches human or animal-like characteristics to a field robot, can it affect how they use that robot? What if they 'care' too much about the robot to send it into a dangerous situation?
That's what Julie Carpenter, a researcher in education at the University of Washington, wanted to know. She interviewed explosive ordnance disposal military personnel about their 'relationships' with the robots they work with every day.
Part of her research involved determining how the relationship these soldiers have with field robots might affect their decision-making ability and, therefore, the mission outcomes. Bluntly, how would a soldier feel if their robot was damaged or completely destroyed?
What Dr Carpenter found is that troops' relationships with robots continue to evolve as the technology changes. Soldiers told her that 'attachment' to their robots didn't affect their performance, yet acknowledged they felt a range of emotions such as frustration, anger and even sadness when their field robot was destroyed.
That makes Carpenter wonder whether outcomes on the battlefield could potentially be compromised by human-robot attachments, or the feeling of self-extension into the robot described by some operators. She believes that these issues are serious ones for those embarking on designing the next generation of field robots.
Dr Carpenter, who plans to write a book on human-robot interactions based on her research, interviewed 23 explosive ordnance personnel - 22 men and one woman - trained to defuse chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, as well as roadside bombs. They rely on robots to detect, inspect and sometimes disarm explosives, and to do advance scouting and reconnaissance, and in so doing reduce the risks to themselves.
Researchers have previously documented just how attached people can get to inanimate objects, be it a car or a child's toy. While the personnel in Dr Carpenter's study all defined a robot as a mechanical tool, they also often anthropomorphised them, assigning human or animal-like attributes to their robots, including gender, and displaying a kind of empathy toward the machines.
Many of the soldiers Dr Carpenter talked to named their robots, usually after a celebrity or current partner. Despite this, operators insisted that the likelihood of their robots being destroyed did not affect their decision as to whether or not to send these mechanical devices into harm's way. The first reaction to a robot being destroyed was anger at losing an expensive piece of equipment; however, some also described a feeling of loss.
Robots that are currently used for these tasks are far from humanoid or animal-like in their appearance; however, future designs are likely to be so, because they are more agile and better able to climb stairs and manoeuvre themselves through narrow spaces and across challenging terrain.
Dr Carpenter questions, when these next-generation robots are eventually deployed, how that human or animal-like appearance will affect an operator's ability to make rational decisions.
Les Hunt
Editor