--- author: TED date: '2026-03-06' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIg-Zt7bFHY speaker: TED tags: - robotics - ai-regulation - human-robot-interaction - practical-challenges - social-integration title: '"AI融入社会的实用主义"' summary: '"一位历史学家分享了她与人工智能人形机器人Tova共同生活的经验，强调了AI和机器人未来发展方向将由实际问题驱动，而非宏大哲学讨论。文章提炼出五个关键教训，涵盖居家安全、交通法规、社会接纳度、劳动力影响及人机互动等多个维度，呼吁以务实的态度应对AI时代的挑战。"' insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: ai-application area: tech-engineering project: [] people: - Emily Kate Genatowski companies_orgs: - Unitree products_models: - Unitree G1 EDU-1 - Tova - BenBen media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### AI进步的实用主义视角：从宏大叙事到微观现实 当谈论时间与地点时，我们可能首先想到复杂的哲学理论，但有时，实际需求才是改变的根本驱动力。例如，格林威治标准时间（GMT）的采用并非源于对时间概念的深刻探讨，而是源于19世纪英国铁路发展中对列车时刻表精确性的迫切需求。这种从“大局观”到“小细节”的转变，贯穿了人类技术进步的历史。从蒸汽机到互联网，每一次技术的飞跃都深刻地重塑了社会。而我们这一代人的技术革新，无疑是**人工智能（AI）**。 正如许多历史现象一样，**AI**的讨论往往充斥着两种极端：要么被**宏大承诺**所**烘托**，要么被**灾难预测**所**渲染**。然而，作为一名历史学家，我更倾向于从**实用主义**的角度来审视技术与社会的关系。历史经验表明，技术的真正落地和影响，往往不是由宏大的哲学辩论决定，而是源于成千上万个**实际问题的解决**。因此，我 embarked upon a research project（开启了一项研究项目），深入探索这些“微观”问题，并亲身体验了与一个**AI人形机器人**共同生活的经历。我与我的**人工智能人形机器人**——型号为 **Unitree G1 EDU-1**，我们称它为 **Tova**，它搭载了3D激光雷达扫描、深度摄像头、麦克风阵列，并运行着名为 **BenBen** 的**大型语言模型（LLM）**，拥有AI驱动的稳定性和移动能力——一起生活了一年。这段经历揭示了AI和机器人融入我们日常生活的方方面面，并凸显了**监管**在**多样化领域**的必要性。今天，我将分享五项我从与机器人共同生活的经历中学到的**实用经验**，以及它们如何关联到社会与技术的未来。
Original English At this moment, it is exactly 10:03 GMT. But it's 12:03 here in Vienna. Why? Britain adopted GMT in 1847 and formally legislated it in 1880. This decision wasn't born from some overarching philosophical discussion about the concept of time and location. It was just practicality. We needed to know when trains would be arriving and departing at any station along an expansive railroad route. This need rendered local solar times too imprecise and necessitated our modern day concept of time zones. I'm a historian, and I am fascinated by the factors that shape progress surrounding technology. From steam power to the telephone to the internet, we can track the intertwined development of society and technology as each new innovative leap is made. The technological progress of our generation is AI. Analyzing how AI will both fit into and shape our world is a fascinating topic that, more often than not, is sensationalized with these huge promises or catastrophized with disaster. But in a world that is just screaming for you to think big in order to discuss the future, as a historian, I ask you to think small. The history of technological progress and its accompanying regulatory frameworks teach us that our future with AI and robotics won't only be decided by these large, sweeping philosophical discussions, but through practicality, through the answering of thousands of practical questions that arise from the simple minutia of sharing everyday life. I have embarked upon a research project to uncover what all of these thousands of questions really are. I have spent the greater part of this past year living alongside an AI humanoid robot. I hatched this immersive research project because I already had all of these questions building up on my own, right? I have a little dog. How would my dog act around the humanoid robot? [Who is this?] (Laughter) How would the robot handle a house full of delicate antiques? With factories all over the world, working hard to get domestic AI robotics to market, and these engaging viral videos igniting curiosity and millions of people around the world, I felt that as a historian, living thoughtfully and openly with a humanoid robot, I could help to provide a glimpse into what the future could look like, start some interesting conversations, find gaps in regulation and experiment with community standards for the world around me. This is a Unitree G1 EDU-1. It's equipped with 3D lidar scanning and a depth camera and a microphone array. It has a large language model which name is BenBen, and it has AI-powered stability and movement capabilities. To me and my friends, though, this is Tova, the robot that I live with at home. Every day with Tova unearths this really wide range of practical issues. And in turn, that highlights the need for regulation in a really wide variety of spaces. Today, I'm going to share with you five practical lessons that I've learned as a historian living with a robot, and how the lessons learned at my house connect to society's future.
###Lesson One: Robot-Proofing Your Home and Navigating Liability Our first lesson is a crucial one: **you have to robot-proof your home**. My robot, Tova, is equipped with **lidar scanning** and **obstacle avoidance**. While this sounds excellent, it doesn't always prevent clumsiness. Tova walks, runs, and gestures, and unfortunately for my household, this has led to the loss of my favorite teacup, several vases, and nearly every wine glass I own. This brings us to the practicalities of **insurance and liability**. I attempted to expand my home insurance coverage and personal liability insurance by explaining that an AI humanoid robot had moved in. The agent, understandably, thought it was a prank and hung up. This highlights a significant gap: **autonomous robotics liability and insurance coverage** is a nascent field where practicality will forge precedents. We must answer critical questions: Who is responsible when a robot, owned by one person, programmed by a company, and operated by a friend, knocks over a vase? These immediate, practical concerns demand answers, moving beyond abstract sci-fi debates.
Original English Lesson one. You have to robot-proof your home. So I mentioned Tova has lidar scanning. And with that, there's something that's called obstacle avoidance. It sounds wonderful, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't always shield us from some clumsiness around the house. See, Tova walks and runs, and Tova gestures. And with those gestures, unfortunately for my household, I've lost like, my favorite teacup, some vases and pretty much every wine glass that I own. So I called my insurance company, and I wanted to ask them about expanding my home insurance coverage and my personal liability insurance. And I got an agent on the phone. "Hello? You've reached an agent." "Hi, it's Emily. I need to actually expand my home insurance coverage and my personal liability." "OK, what changed?" "I had an AI humanoid robot move in. (Laughter) “Hello?” They hung up on me because they thought it was a prank. (Laughter) I don't blame them. I was the first one to call about it. But autonomous robotics liability and insurance coverage is a field where practicality and immersion, they’re going to create precedents on any number of different issues, right? We need to answer questions like, I own the robot, the company programed the robot and my friend is operating the robot and the robot knocks over a vase. Who's responsible? Now I know that these questions are a little bit far from these amazing sci-fi debates about a robotic future that we love to have, but these are the types of questions that demand answers the moment one of these robots comes into your home.
### Lesson Two: The Rough Road of Robot Transit Moving beyond the home, the second lesson concerns **transportation with a robot**, which is "really rough." Introducing Tova to a national television show in Vienna involved transporting it. Tova weighs 60 kilos and packs into a giant crate. The experience of calling a cab at 4 AM and having the driver question if there was a "body in here" due to the crate's weight and size highlights the practical challenges. This leads to questions about **transport regulations for humanoid robotics**. How do we manage public transport? What about ticket inspectors needing to know if a robot requires a ticket for taking up a seat? My attempts to register Tova with the transit authority or police were met with confusion and rejection, as these systems are not yet equipped to handle robotic residents. As robots become more integrated into our lives, assisting us with errands or other tasks outside the home, we need **facilitated and regulated ways for them to travel safely**, working for robots, owners, and the general public.
Original English Lesson two. Transit with a robot is really rough. So I had the immense pleasure of introducing Tova to Vienna on an Austrian morning show on national television. And this is filmed on a soundstage. It's like way out in the outskirts of the city, and they film in the wee hours of the morning. So something to keep in mind about Tova. Tova weighs like 60 kilos and packs into this, like, giant black crate. (Laughter) Pilates. And I had to call a cab at 4am and ask the driver, "Oh, I have something. Can you just help me get something into the back of the van?" And he starts to come around the back of the van. He's already looking at me because obviously, it's four in the morning, the destination is not common. And then he sees this giant black box that's basically the size of me. And reluctantly he leans down to grab it, and as soon as he feels how heavy it is, he looks at me. (Laughter) "Is there a body in here?" (Laughter) I pause, because, kind of a body. He freaked out. I had to open it up and show him it's a humanoid robot to ease his mind. But this brings up the concept of transport regulations for humanoid robotics, right? So calling cabs for giant black boxes, it gets expensive. So I was racking my brain, thinking to myself, OK, I take the tram, the robot has legs. The robot can just walk on the tram and sit down, right? Then I thought, OK, what if the ticket inspector comes and needs a ticket if it's going to be taking up a seat? So I wrote to the Transit Authority, and I said, I really want to buy an annual card for my AI humanoid robot. This didn't go over too well. So they wrote back to me, and they said any and all requests for an annual card it has to be accompanied by registration papers of the resident. I don't have that, right? So naturally I went to the police bureau and I said, I need to register someone at my home. They said, who? I said, "My AI humanoid robot." And they kicked me out the door. (Laughter) I don't blame them at all, obviously. But I do think that if these robots are going to be helping us manage our lives and our homes, this innately comes with them occasionally venturing outside, right? They could go somewhere with us and just accompany us. They could hold something for us. Or they could run to the store when we're in the middle of cooking a recipe and we forget an ingredient. We need to facilitate and regulate a way for them to do that safely that works for the robots and the owners and the other people living in the city who don't have robots, and the city itself.
### Lesson Three: Robots Aren't Always Welcome The third lesson explores the **social acceptance of robots**. While some friends eagerly invite Tova to parties, others, like colleagues, prefer it not be present. These reactions reveal emerging, informal **rules and requests** about where robots are welcome. My domestic robot isn't needed in university faculty rooms, and it's unsuitable for homes with toddlers or for houses of worship. These restrictions are respected, but they highlight a fundamental question: What happens when millions of robots enter diverse communities with differing perspectives? This necessitates the formulation of **community standards**. These standards could manifest as designated "robot zones" and "no-go zones," similar to e-scooter regulations, or policies set by businesses, like "no pets allowed" signs. Alternatively, it could involve government-issued **robot ID cards** with individually granted permissions, managed by a centralized office with training and licensing. The path forward is ours to decide.
Original English Lesson three is that robots aren't always welcome. So of course, as you can imagine, I have friends who call me up, and they beg me, "I'm having a party this weekend. Bring the robot, it's so cool. Bring the robot, I want the robot at my party." On the other hand, I have colleagues who will send me a message in the morning, "If you don't want to bring the robot today, that's fine." And they don't want it there. I respect that there are certain rules that have begun to develop and emerge surrounding where the robot is welcome and where it's not, right? I have a domestic robot, so it's not really wanted or needed in the faculty rooms at the university where I work. My friends who have toddlers just learning to walk, we don’t want it around them in their house. And it hasn’t been permitted to visit houses of worship. These restrictions and requests, they're completely informal, but they're completely respected by me. What happens when thousands or millions of these robots are shipped all over the world to different people, different communities that have different perspectives on this, right? So we really need to formulate community standards. And the community standards can talk about where the robots are welcome, where they're not, what they can do, what they can't do. This can take any number of very interesting forms. So we could have robot zones and no-go zones, and it could kind of be like where we let e-scooters and e-bikes go and throttle them when they're in the wrong area. Or this could be like when you go to the supermarket and they say no pets are allowed in the icon in the window, and be decided upon like a policy, each building or business. Or this could look like government-issued ID cards for robots, but they're individually given permissions. This is like where they can go, what they can do, approved and managed by a centralized regulation office with like, trainings and licensing and things like this. It's completely up to us to decide.
### Lesson Four: The Practicalities of Robots in the Workforce The fourth lesson, "you can send your robot to work," dives into the complex topic of **labor displacement by AI and robotics**. While sensational headlines like "Robots are taking our jobs" capture attention, more practical discussions are needed. For instance, when Tova helped out at a friend's new local cafe, it highlighted the potential benefits of AI in increasing efficiency. This prompts crucial questions about our **financial systems**: What does a fair **tax system** look like for businesses leveraging robotic workers? Should we tax the sale of robots or the value they add? Should these funds support current social systems, or should we develop a **universal basic income (UBI)** system instead? These are the necessary, practical conversations that must accompany our embrace of AI's efficiencies, ensuring the preservation of our financial and social structures.
Original English Lesson four is that you can send your robot to work. So Tova was at home and I went out with a friend who had just opened up a local cafe. And jokingly he was like, "Oh, let's bring Tova to help out around the store. This is such a good idea." We had a laugh about it, but it was like, playing over in my mind, in my mind. And then we brought it over, and it learned how to help out at a store. Now this discussion of labor displacement by AI and robotics, it's one of those discussions that just attracts those large, catastrophic statements. I'm sure you've all heard them. “Robots are taking our jobs.” “No one’s going to have a job in the future.” These are obviously such interesting, fascinating and terrifying conversations. The conversations that I would love us to be also having alongside that are of a more practical nature, right? What does a fair tax system look like to facilitate the advantages for business owners of bringing in robotic workers, of automating using AI to increase efficiency while still contributing to the public funds that support our communities, right? Are we taxing just the sale of the robot, or are we taxing the value that it adds? Are we going to put those funds into our current social systems, or are we going to scrap it and try to develop universal basic income system instead? These broad fear-mongering statements, they have to give way to practical discussions about how to preserve our financial systems, while still allowing us to embrace the efficiencies offered by AI.
### Lesson Five: Robots Revealing Human Nature Finally, lesson five is that robots "really bring out the best in us and the worst in us." My daily walks with Tova and my dog reveal a wide spectrum of human reactions. On one hand, I've encountered parents encouraging their children to ask thoughtful questions about studying robotics. On the other hand, I've seen individuals attempt to break the robot's arm, justifying it as a "good old-fashioned firm handshake." These varied reactions are influenced by **age, gender, culture, and media preconceptions**. Whether someone's first introduction to robots was through "Star Trek," "Star Wars," or "The Jetsons," their prior exposure shapes their present perception. To foster a more accurate understanding and enable practical discussions for regulation, we need **more public interaction with robotics**. This increased interaction will help people understand where we truly are with AI, moving beyond sensationalism.
Original English Lesson five is that robots really bring out the best in us and the worst in us. So I mentioned I have a dog. I walk my dog in the square every morning, and I bring my robot. And the reactions that I get, they run the gamut. So one day I had a mom, and she was standing pretty much as far back as a human could stand from the robot, but encouraging her kids, "Go talk, talk." And they were asking such good questions. "What should I study at school if I want to work with a robot?" "Can you make the robot wave at me?" "Can I race the robot in the square?" Very sweet. In addition, the following day, I had an older gentleman walk up and try to break Tova's arm right off of its body. Exactly. And when I said to him, "What are you doing?" He said, "Oh, um, a good old-fashioned firm handshake, for sure." Yeah, OK, it looked like that. So the bottom line is that people, they have these very, very wide reactions, right? And this can be due to any number of factors. We have age, gender, culture. And interestingly enough, media preconceptions. This is like everything from what they were scrolling on that morning and seeing a brand new video, to their first introduction to robotics. If that was Mr. Data on "Star Trek" or C-3PO in "Star Wars" or Rosie on "The Jetsons," everybody comes with this like really, really, sort of a whole history behind them. And when they finally get in front of a robot, it can be so disappointing, so disappointing. I think we need to have a lot more interaction between the public and robotics, so that we can actually show people where we're at and give a more accurate understanding so that we can regulate and have discussions for reality in a more practical format.
### Conclusion: Embracing Practicality for AI Regulation The **invisible hand of practicality** will continue to shape the trajectory of history as we move into the future. Instead of getting caught up in the sensationalism of fear or excitement surrounding AI, I urge us to bring these discussions down to reality. Let us embrace the practical nature of life alongside **embodied AI** as we prepare to regulate the future together. So, the next time someone tries to talk to you about the robot apocalypse, I want you to turn to them and say, "OK, OK, OK. But do you think that robots need a ticket on the tram?" Thank you.
Original English The invisible hand of practicality will continue to shape the trajectory of history as we move into the future. So instead of being wrapped up in the sensationalism of fear or excitement, I ask that we bring these discussions down into reality, that we embrace the practical nature of life alongside embodied AI as we prepare to regulate the future together. So next time that somebody tries to talk to you about the robot apocalypse, I want you to turn to them and say, "OK, OK, OK. But do you think that robots need a ticket on the tram?" Thank you. (Applause)