Mari Velonaki, Professor of Social Robotics, University of New South Wales, Sydney
How will robots evolve to assist individuals with health and wellbeing in the future? Mari Velonaki, Professor of Social Robotics, University of New South Wales in Sydney, envisions a future where technology coevolves to enhance humanity. One of the world’s preeminent thinkers in robotics, Mari’s work emphasizes creativity and playfulness in design, advocating for a shift from mere utility to personalized, transparent and ethically-driven solutions. Drawing on the concept of “coevolution,” her approach highlights the organic and synergetic possibility of society and technology evolving together.
Mari Velonaki is a Professor of Social Robotics at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. She is the founder and director of the Creative Robotics Lab (Art, Design & Architecture UNSW) and the founder and director of the National Facility for Human Robot Interaction Research (UNSW, USYD, UTS, St Vincent’s Hospital). Mari is a Research Leader at the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute.
Professor Velonaki’s research is situated in the multi-disciplinary field of Social Robotics. She holds a PhD in Experimental Interface Design (UNSW 2003). Velonaki began working as a media artist/researcher in the field of responsive environments and interactive interface design in 1997. She pioneered experimental interfaces that incorporate movement, speech, touch, breath, electrostatic charge, artificial vision and robotics, allowing for the development of haptic and immersive relationships between participants and interactive agents. In 2014 she was voted by Robohub – a large robotics community of researchers, educators and business – as one of the world’s 25 women in robotics you need to know about.
Mari’s contributions in the areas of Social Robotics, Responsive Systems and Human-Machine Interface Design include:
Created novel interfaces between a human and a robot that include the modalities of movement as body language, touch as an encoder of human emotion.
Created interactive robots that are of human scale and have substantial presence in the physical world.
Introduced open experimentation whereby robots are placed in public spaces and not tested only in laboratory settings.
Velonaki has assembled two of the world’s largest datasets (over 690,000 recorded interactions in 13 countries) in human-robot interaction (HRI) studies that provide valuable information on the qualitative dimensions of human-machine interactions.
She is the recipient of several competitive grants and has collaborated extensively with industry partners in Australia, Japan and the United States. Mari’s robots and responsive installations have been exhibited worldwide.
Show Notes
Mari Velonaki shares her background in interaction design and robotics.[03:46]
What does a human centric vision for the future look like? [05:23]
How can technological systems evolve to support us in the future? [08:11]
What is the coevolution of assisted robots? [11:58]
Should robots be human-like? [15:29]
How can humans and robots move from coexistence to co-inhabitation to coevolution in 30 years? [18:50]
Developing new technologies that enhance our humanity. [23:10]
How can generative assisted robots improve the quality of life for those with disabilities or special needs? [25:38]
How can robots be tailored to meet unique individual needs? [30:03]
How can we address ethical considerations and potential challenges associated with generative assisted robots? [32:34]
What would the world of assisted robotics look like without art? [34:52]
Transcript
Bisi Williams 00:04
I'm Bisi Williams, you're listening to Health2049.
Mari Velonaki 00:09
To me, my personal vision is systems that don't copy something, why do we need to copy another human. We don't believe in relationships of replacement. The worst thing that can happen, at least to me, is to have a mini me. My approach for health and wellbeing is very human centric, evaluating current systems and developing systems that are relevant for people's ever changing needs.
Bisi Williams 01:50
Hello, my name is Bisi Williams and you're listening to Health2049. Have you ever imagined interacting with robots that respond to your touch, speech and movements just like a human? Well, this is not just a figment of the imagination, it's the reality of social robots, an interdisciplinary field that combines computer science, engineering, psychology and sociology. This innovative field has the potential to revolutionize human life and is already being used in healthcare. One pioneering figure in this field is Professor Mari Velonaki who has been voted one of the world's 25 Women in Robotics that you need to know about. Her research has broken new ground in the development of haptic and immersive relationships between people and interactive agents. And her work is not confined to the lab. In fact, she has introduced open experimentation by placing robots in public places, collecting valuable information on the qualitative dimensions of human machine interactions through the world's largest datasets, with over 600,000 recorded interactions in 13 countries. Mari Velonaki is a professor of social robotics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. She is the founder and director of the Creative Robotics Lab. She's also the founder and director of the National Facility of Human Robot Interaction Research and Professor Velonaki is a research leader at the University of New South Wales Ageing Futures Institute. Get ready to be inspired. It is my pleasure to introduce Professor Velonaki, welcome to Health2049.
Mari Velonaki 03:33
Thank you, Bisi, oh, wow, what an introduction. Thank you so much for your kind words.
Bisi Williams 03:38
I'm so stoked to have you on this show. And so first of all, Mari, can you tell us a bit more about your interesting background?
Mari Velonaki 03:46
Well, my interesting background. So I started exploring, I guess spaces, technology and interactions with people in the middle 90s. I first started in the area of interaction design. My PhD was in new interfaces. And then I moved into social robotics, actually this interesting, my first postdoc was at the Australian Centre for Field Robotics in 2003, where I designed my first robot fish birth. So this is a mixture of interaction design, moving to robotics and retraining myself in order to be able to move to mechatronic design, technological designer then supervise bigger projects, but I guess my background in interaction design before I even moved to robotics, taught me that in human machine interaction, human machine collaboration, the most interesting part is the human, the most challenging, and I think my research is still the same when I started many, many years ago over three decades, I'm still trying to create interfaces that enhance and improve the human experience.
Bisi Williams 05:15
I think that's amazing. So I'd love it if you would please share with our listeners your vision for health and wellness in the year 2049.
Mari Velonaki 05:23
My vision as I'm getting gracefully older, maybe not so gracefully, I will link it with my involvement within the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute. One of the reasons we started, actually, credit also to Professor Kaarin Anstey, who is the founder and director, but what I found interesting about the health space, it's the approach of a lifelong study and lifelong approach of how I guess we remain healthy and healthy physically, mentally. Yes, we change. As you know, basically, a few months ago, I had a very major robotic surgery myself, which was very different to the kind of robots I work or design. But my vision is really utilizing developing technologies that can be personalized, that they can change based on ever changing needs, that they expand our live space and create more freedom, that we can live at home alone longer, and that we can support ourselves. So it's really about enabling them every day, more freedom for the everyday as we get older and maybe a little bit more vulnerable. But also technologies that change with us, learn from us and become personalized, it's not, when it comes to assistive systems, it's not one size fits all. My approach for health and wellbeing is again, very human centric. So evaluating current systems and developing systems, that they're relevant for people's ever changing needs. Also, the concept of disability, for me it's something really interesting, because we all have different abilities and different disabilities are different parts of our life. So again, creating shared public spaces that not only expand one's lifespace, regardless of special abilities, disabilities, whatever you want to call it, but they invite physical and intellectual, protect safe places that people can experiment and be together, regardless of their abilities.
Bisi Williams 08:00
So how do you imagine technological systems, how do you imagine that they would evolve and change in the future, how would it really be different for us?
Mari Velonaki 08:11
To me, there are really two things. One is you improve the technological aspect, which is important, and aspects of systems that they learn, that they adjust. I guess the sensory feedback, they understand more about the environment and more about the user. So okay, this is one part and I think we're doing okay, we're growing in this area. But the other part that is also part of my vision, I think there's a gap. It's really the creative aspect, the personalized aspect, the playful aspect, because at the moment when we talk about health or for assistive technologies or supporting technologies, there's a sense of something very utilitarian. And of course, I always borrow the borderies, this concept of the ideological and the mechanical apparatus. You need the philosophical, the ideological and then of course you need the technology to work. So I don't want to undermine how hard it is to develop a system to test them, but that they actually work, they function, but there is another kind of working and functioning and this is how people perceive and experience those technologies. How they feel that the technologies don't drive them, but they have authorship, they own them and they understand them. They're intuitive and they have interfaces that they relate to the users, so it's not like another device that reminds me that my hearing is deteriorating or reminds me that my memory is not at its best, but it's something that I feel, I guess removing, say blandly social stigma. So for me the creative aspect like we were talking about social robotics then being multidisciplinary. By definition we design systems for the people. So it cannot do it alone. But also the creative aspect of it, the design, something that can be also whimsical, regardless of the age group is important. So I think what we're missing is some sort of playfulness and personalization of this technology. So it's not only customization, that people feel that they're happy to use. It's not just user experience, it's not something you just test in the lab. I think that's what I'm missing. And that's what I would strive to see. This approach, it can't be one person's vision, I think it's a shift of how we design assistive systems or systems that they make us feel, provides information, makes us feel more secure in our own homes, longer. It's almost like mnemonic palaces, we don't want systems that remind us of what we're not good at or what we need improvement or health, but systems that celebrate where we are as humans and support us.
Bisi Williams 11:41
I love that. If you talk about this world that we're building, this future state you talk about, how will we move from coexistence and co-inhabitation and coevolution? What does that mean, coevolution of our assisted robots?
Mari Velonaki 11:58
This is really interesting, coevolution, it's almost like a much more organic approach of coevolution to meet as a society, and it's not just technologies there, people are varying between. We all coevolve. First of all it has a more positive connotation that means not just growth, not just greed, not just more, but growing sometimes means understanding that you need less. Some aspects of your growth could be more, some could be less, some needs to stop and some others need to be even more evolved. But it implies synergetic, it's a synergy of things. And it's something that it's not forceful. We all need to be on the same page and move together. With my vision about change and talking about technology, society, culture, it's not only the university in the lab, it's not only industry, it's not only government, it's not only society, it's not only cultural institutions, it's not only politics, you need everything. So this involves different aspects of our society, it needs everyone so to me, also the transparency, the societal dialogue. This is mystifying because at the moment is Oh, the AI will take over, the robots will take over and sometimes I feel the debate. These are very important debates. So we need ethicists and social scientists at the drawing table not afterwards but from the very beginning. Some of my concerns, sometimes we move the debate to the evil machine, the evil system, the evil instead of the decisions and the social responsibility we have. So it's not about the bad decisions. It's not about the evil system. So although these debates are extremely important and the concerns are critical that we need to address to coevolve, we shouldn't be afraid but we shouldn't be also ignorant or optimistic in every single aspect or blind. We need not only to face fears, but we need to be brave in trying to understand what are the issues we need to address.
Bisi Williams 14:41
I think that's interesting because one of the things also in our conversation that we talked about is and this is from your perspective, your of the mind that we don't want to replace humans, nor do they need to be human like, but explain what you mean by that, and coexisting, that creativity, do you imagine it would take on a new form? Or would it be a new life in a way or a new form with its own sentience that's in service? I mean, how do you imagine that? Do you want a mini me, everyone talks about a digital twin. Is that what you're thinking about? But this would be a form of twin of you?
Mari Velonaki 15:29
Interesting. Because, yeah, that's my personal belief, I can talk only about myself and actually the people in my lab. We don't believe in relationships of replacement. The worst thing that can happen, at least to me, is to have a mini me. I don't believe that we have the robots that we deserve in our society. I don't believe that I have designed the best robots I can design. Hopefully not. And representation is very tricky. So although we've learned a lot, and I'm so grateful to all this amazing, of course, we've learned so much from these pioneers, we've learned a lot with our own work. But still, to me, my personal vision is systems that don't copy something, why do we need to copy another human. I just think it's limited. And also there's something about human physiology, that it's so hard to replicate, I would be interested in distributed systems that also have a physical presence, but also that’s distributed, then instead of having a robot going up the stairs, that's a very different task in a home environment, you have a physical agent maybe downstairs and upstairs a representation of that agent. And when I keep talking about physical. For many of our listeners, in robotics, let's put Hollywood aside, unfortunately because people come to me and then they get disappointed and many of my esteemed colleagues, as soon as you have something physical, everything slows down. If you have a digital avatar, everything is faster. Digital gravity, motors, battery distribution, everything's slow. So we have many, many years, we have a gap here, what's physical and what's virtual. So our physical systems are growing, but they're still not quite there. Many times we have the question, why something physical? For my love for the facility you visited, but it's always hard for us, because of course research around the world is based on soft money, as we know. So we love our research contracts and industry contracts. And I'm heartbroken when I have to tell people when they come to me, and obviously we would like another contract. But I have to say I'm sorry, why do you need a robot? And then they realize that they don't need the robot. So save your money, you don't need us, you need something different on a different interface. So many times we don't need a robot, we don't need the physical representation of what the robot is.
Bisi Williams 18:23
I think that makes sense. And so I just wanted to go back to that idea about the robot and I'm going to ask you this question. But based on what you said we can evolve this question, why are you confident that your vision of humans and robots moving from coexistence, to co-inhabitation to a state of coevolution can be achieved in 30 years?
Mari Velonaki 18:50
Okay, I want to be confident. I link it back to what I started to say before my very long background. But still, there's something very, very special, just to link it back to why we need physical systems. There are many occasions that we don't, but there's something very special and I'll go back to kinetics, when you have something physical that you share a room with. It's very different from having something virtual. There's something almost magical about having this physical, tactile representation of something. So although it's not good for everything, I still think that these future robots, and please let's try to imagine that there are objects of the future depending on the use, so it's not one robot, one use, one system, they can look very different. I would be happy with robots if they can change shape, that we utilize new materials that have been developed, distributed networks and materials that allow for amazing computational power that miniaturized within these materials. Neural networks that do exist today, but also materials that are better for our senses, materials that it's not metal or plastic or something just soft. Like they provide amazing tactile interfaces. So they're robots about the future. There's progress in AI and machine learning by a demonstration that different schools, their progress in materials, amazing progress interfaces, network systems, batteries, not so much yet. Motors halfway, but we need to combine them together and we need also to have the creativity to meet, like a creative approach. It's centered around this. It's almost compositional. So yes, I think in so many years I am confident that if the approach is one that it's human centric, that’s not so much human centered, that doesn't mean human centered when I use that it's human as a center what's best for humans. And many times having mean humans or bad replicas of humans, or instead of creating new jobs, replacing jobs, there are very few times that we need to replace humans and that's in jobs actually, that humans should not do. But there are many other jobs for evolution to meet that also co-work with systems, not that the system is going to take over my job if my job is a satisfactory job, but also creating new jobs. So that's why it's a much bigger conversation between government, society, universities, industry, it's multi-partnered as well. But this vision of coevolution, it's a new compositional exercise, if you wish, that it's not a robot, there is not a distributed system there. It's not the museum, art museums and culture don't need me or don't need justification. They exist on their own, that have been existing for 1000s of years in different cultures around the world before institutions as they need to evolve in experience of your environment, in your society, in yourself. But I think that part of that aspect of co experience, coevolution, enhancement, it's missing.
Bisi Williams 23:01
I love that. And so tell me Mari, why is your idea and vision important? And how does it make the world a better place?
Mari Velonaki 23:10
I don't think it's only my idea. And if my idea is important, time will judge, I'm very passionate, but I don't know if it's important. I'm not comfortable saying this is important. It's important to me, if I die, contributing 0.0005 of someone's experience, if a person feels more human, so to me what's important, it's developing technologies that enhance our humanity. Humanity is the core of it, it's not machines that make us more machinic and it's not systems just for convenience or increase for profit. There's nothing wrong about increasing your profit for companies, as long as we create jobs but the other things in there. So to me it's about, we develop systems and we develop a society but we cannot partition this is the technology, this is the AI, this is robotics. We can see it only as a product development. You know what, a great product is wonderful. I'm not against the product. I'm not against the industry, I'm the very opposite. I don't believe that this is one box and this is another box. It's like we need to work together. But really, it's about creating systems that are relevant to our current and future needs, that they learn from us, that they don't dictate us. We don't want the kind of interface for a middle aged woman that says I need to struggle. It reminds me how slow I am, and where are my glasses, and 10 years from now, it's going to be even harder. The context that we design is important. But then the learning of the systems and the ability to learn not like a big brother, big sister, whatever you want to call it, it's like learning from you and protecting your data and move along with you is important in order to be accepted in our society, otherwise, they're not going to be used.
Bisi Williams 25:38
You're absolutely right. And I would love it, if you would share a bit more about how generative assisted robots can improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities or special needs, for example.
Mari Velonaki 25:53
This is what I was talking about before, this is an area we're working on and I want to see results in the next year because practically there's nothing there. It's so little, it's really, so again, it's so little in terms of risk. It's a lot of research, but I want to see the application. The difference about this kind of work and I say it's so little, it's not just based on lab experiments, I want to see the difference. I want to see this system implemented with society. It was wonderful and thank you so much for your truly amazing introduction about my work, I hope I deserve 5% of that. It is true, yes, we have the biggest data collection in the world from 13 countries, in public spaces, in major museums of how cultural robotics or robots interact with people in a shared space. And we've learned a lot. But you know what, no one has, including us, long term data. I want my system to be used, to be implemented within users, not an experimental phase for two years, for three years, for four years. And then understanding, do they make a change? Do they adapt? Are people happier using them? So my vision for the next, let's say, five years is for these technologies to start being implemented outside of the labs, to society, via industry and government. And there's so much, I'll give you an example. creating spaces with systems that they take into account people like myself, listening to very loud music in the late 80s and 90s. I guess I'd be deaf I'm sure, according to my daughter, yes. We all have different disabilities. There's not one person who gets to middle age who doesn't have, from wearing glasses to hearing to people maybe that need different places, shared social spaces that they cater for also emotional regulation. And there's so many things we can do that with sound, with olfactory stimulation, with robots that respond to people with different needs, or they don't exist in the public domain, that they're not the boring robots. I'm sorry, we don't need the robot to serve me food in a restaurant, honestly. I mean, it's entertaining, it’s great and also kudos to the people that develop the systems because for a physical robot to move around to carry things to hand over things, it's a lot of work. And this work is not wasted, navigation sensors grasp, we can use all things for so many areas. But to me, I’d rather have robots that actually don't look like mini humanoids. They're not metallic. They look more like kinetic sculptures. They could be used in public spaces to assist people. They develop not only with one disability in mind, but what happens if someone is blind? What happens when a robot approaches someone who cannot hear very well? What are the modes of communications we have there? So, to me, it's multi modes of communication. Back to communication, there's so much work about speech recognition. It is very important, of course, for how robots can communicate. But there's so many non direct modes that we haven't explored.
Bisi Williams 29:45
In what ways can generative assistant robots be tailored to meet the unique needs and preferences of individual users? And are there any limitations or trade offs in customization.
Mari Velonaki 30:03
There are limitations now, but if we talk about the future, it should not. And I think the customization is beyond personalization. I know someone will say, Oh, yes, we can have different colors. Yeah. But it's more than colors. Look, even if we went back 30 years ago, to how wheelchairs used to look and how they look today, and how athletes compete with amazing wheelchairs. It's an evolution. But it's beyond mechanics and colors, when we talk about whatever device, assistive is such a big area. Nursing homes, there are people that we meet with dementia that are always asking the same question, when will our loved ones visit again. How do you have personal objects, wearables for people with their short term memories lost, but they still remember that someone is visiting, but also this social stigma and anxiety. I don't want to ask again, they ask for the 25th time when my daughter will visit me again, when is it going to be the next time. Developing systems that can check, that don't evolve days, for example, if you say to someone Tuesday, someone in that stage, like my late mom, that's it, she would have to ask the question when is Tuesday, what day is today for 20 times, and then she'll be anxious because she knows she forgets. So from small things for people that can easily access themselves, empowerment. As I said the robotic walking frames for someone that could be personalized to a different interface, or they mean something. For example, alert, alert is not just something that tells you Oh, my God, you're doing something wrong, but you can have your own personalized alert. It could be something musical or a change of something that it's only for you, it doesn't need to be a red light, or you're lost, your house is one block away, you took the wrong turn.
Bisi Williams 32:20
That's so beautiful. And I'm gonna ask you, what are some of the ethical considerations and potential challenges associated with generative assisted robots? And how can they be addressed?
Mari Velonaki 32:34
Again, it's like the ethicist should be there from the very beginning. Actually, one of our jobs is also to make sure that working alongside with industry, I'm not trying to demonize industry but we need to advise for things that are not good for us, or when there are technologies that you don't want your data to distribute, or for example, in case of an alert, you have to make plans for your future maybe when your cognitive load declines. Who do you want to get your information? Do you want your kids to get this information? Do you want the emergency, I'm just giving an example. You can decide these things, the same way you decide when you're in a hospital, what's going to happen if this goes wrong. So have a plan about how you want these things and make sure again, government policies protect the people. Privacy of data is important. But then you need systems with networks. Personalization is creating codes that mean something to you. So as a user, you want to have your own identifier, a signifier that means something to you. It's not when that happens, this means and the whole world knows so. We have creative experience, we have playful experience, something that is assistive doesn't have to be only utilitarian.
Bisi Williams 34:10
You know what, Mari, designing the in between and designing the spaces and you're right, there's a whole ton of work to be done. And I think that you've really enlightened me, thinking about how you would design the space for autonomous machines to meet people with different abilities. Currently, it's fully abled bodies. And I think that sensitivity to different modes of being, of moving, of living, of engaging is super important. My question that I have for you is, what would the world of assisted robotics look like without art?
Mari Velonaki 34:52
Oh, nightmare, I believe art is so central. We talk about multidisciplinarity. We love our museums and galleries and public art and I believe in assistive systems that also created the design without principles. They're going to be better systems. But I wouldn't like to leave my child or our children, grandchildren, the world to live in a place where everything is utilitarian and there's no space for art. Art is in the heart of humanity. For me, it's important that it's not only for what we define as cultural spaces, but they're extremely important in their own right.
Bisi Williams 35:49
Thank you, Mari. Thank you for an amazing discussion.
Mari Velonaki 35:53
Thank you so much for having me.
