Skip to main content

Hallo Robot - Bennie Mols and Nieske Vergunst ***

From that title with the strangely archaic 'hallo' spelling to the subtitle 'meet your new friend and workmate' the cover of this book promises either quirkiness or cringeworthiness. When it comes to the contents, thankfully it's more the former than the latter in this survey of the world of robotics. (It could also be because the book has been translated from Dutch.)

Starting with historical automata (strangely never called this) and bringing in humanoid robots, industrial robots and the whole science of robotics (plus quite a lot of artificial intelligence), the format gives us a series of chapters dealing with specific challenges such as sight, cognition and speech, each ending with a case study. The whole thing is finished off with a rather nice fiction/fact timeline on robotics through the ages, though it is rather unfortunate that the authors thought that Daleks were robots.

On the whole the coverage is good, though the level is perhaps a little superficial even for a reader with very limited knowledge of the topic. Outside the case studies there is relatively little narrative - more a collection of facts - but the book is rarely dull, helped by the glossy full colour illustrations throughout (the downside of this is the text is all on glossy paper, which makes it feel less like a real book).

There are a few small issues. The tone, as the cover suggests, is mostly positive to the extent of being sunny, and as such tends to avoid being clear about limitations. While we often hear something of what isn't possible now, it's almost always accompanied by a 'but it will get better' some time in the fuzzy future. Claims for existing robots can make them sound better than they are - we're told, for example, that Asimo could walk up stairs, which is true, but omits to point out this wasn't a universal ability, but rather the robot had to be given specific guidance for a particular flight of stairs. Also the occasional historical detail wasn't quite right. We're told SHRDLU is ‘a nonsense word Winograd made up’ - but it isn't, any more than QWERTYUIOP is a ‘nonsense word.’

Perhaps the weakest part is when dealing with self-driving cars. Much is made of them being potentially safer than human cars, and an interviewee is quoted as saying that he thinks the 'turning point will be when self-driving cars are ten times safer than human drivers.' But there is no attempt to unpack the implications. This would mean around 4,000 people a year killed in the US alone each year by self-driving cars - admittedly with 36,000 fewer expected deaths, but the 4,000 would be actual people with relatives to sue the manufacturers. There's a really interesting contrast with a section talking about self-flying planes where it says we still won't fly in planes without a human pilot 'And that's entirely justified...'

While the book could do with a bit more depth, it is attractive and covers a fair amount of ground. Perhaps best for teenagers with an interest in the topic.
Paperback 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on