Ronald C. Arkin

"If we are to create robotic systems to reside among us, they must also adhere to a set of related values that humans operate under. This talk first describes."

"Two things. I have two degrees in chemistry, which many people don’t know. The first was at Michigan. It was a BS in chemistry. But, also, I got a dual major in applied mathematics, which shows my age, because they didn’t have computer science there, at the time. So I had a good advisor who told me that, “You’re taking all these mathematics courses, so maybe you should take a few more.” And I did. I spent an extra summer term there, and they gave me the dual major, which gave me the insights into the computer science career that I have. But I also ended up eventually working in the chemistry industry for a significant number of years, first at a dyestuff company, and then as a pharmaceutical R&D chemist, both in R&D, with my bachelor’s, and then I got my master’s while I was working full time. So I like to call myself a “serendipitous roboticist.” I kind of stumbled into it for – in an odd way; not like most folks, who have had this passion for robotics from their youths. I’ve had a passion for science from my youth, but not for – specifically for robotics."

"That’s an interesting convolution of events; or a “configuration of events” is a better way to put it. What happened was I was working in this R&D laboratory, working with chemicals that were labeled “known or suspected carcinogen” on a daily basis – fumoids, of course, and the like, as well, too. And I loved the joy of discovery of chemistry, which was one of the beautiful things about chemistry, a heavily plowed field. But I also recognized, “Maybe there’s not a future for me if I keep doing this.” And there were accidents occurring in the plant that I was working at, because we took it from research bench, all the way out into process in the plant. And I kind of said, drawing on, “Yes, I was a hippie.” I actually had long hair at one point in time. And so we decided to move up to New Hampshire, my wife and I, who’ve been married for 41 years now, to investigate what kind of work we had. I had bought 50 acres of land up there prior, on a previous visit, so moved up and took a job at a small college which is now defunct. It was called Hawthorne College, in Antrim, New Hampshire; taught there for, I think, close to 10 years, with only my master’s degree in chemistry. A series of events occurred where the Florida Institute of Technology came up and bought the college as a campus for them, because they had a flight program, and it was boring to fly in Florida, and we had interesting terrain up there. And since it was an Institute of Technology, they were interested in starting up computer science, and as I had some background from applied mathematics, I volunteered to set up the program. I served as department chair, and after a while I started thinking maybe I should get my PhD, if I’m going to be a department chair. And so the school was very accommodating, let me go take the time off – not completely. I was still teaching, and the like, at a – it was a teaching school – and went and got my degree. First, I went to the University of Lowell, and I took a robotics course there because it fit my schedule, not because of any deep-seated commitment for robotics. Then I found – and I was disturbed because I had to take the GRE, even there. And I said, “I’m a chair of a computer science department. Why do I have to take a GRE?” Well, I took it, and they give you a couple of places to apply to, and I – UMass Lowell was actually – UMass – excuse me – Amherst was further away, but it was faster because it was freeway. I didn’t know that at the time, so I gave my score. I was accepted because I applied there, and when I was interviewed there, they assumed I was going to be a roboticist because they saw I took a robotics course at the University of Lowell, and they lined me up with all these folks at UMass – Wendy Leonard and others, as well, too, in the AI group – and it stuck. So... it wasn’t a conscious choice, and I would say I’m fairly unique in the field for two reasons. One is the serendipitous aspect of being led. I kind of feel like Jonah being vomited up on the shores of robotics, from a calling from God, if you will, perhaps. So that was one of the reasons, and the other is my scientific background. I have formal training – extensive formal training – in the scientific method, and I think that’s something that, in the computer science area in which I am housed within, not as many of our colleagues have that kind of basis for a deep scientific exploration and understanding that they – as they should. And so, again, those two things, I think, distinguish me from some of my colleagues."

"Well, at the time, the behavior-based paradigm was emerging. If you look at the early work by Brooks, and others, as well, too, it tended to be rule-based. Schemas themselves were concurrent asynchronous processes, which could be multithreaded and run independently. There are also things – those are the motor schemas. Perceptual schemas were the same, so it became an interesting question of how you schedule and manage these particular processes, kind of like, one could argue, the brain does, as well, too, with all these different processes, and how do you make sense of it. My thesis title, if I remember correctly, was Towards Cosmopolitan Robots: Intelligent Navigation in Manmade Environments – Extended Manmade Environments. So we’re looking at inside a building, and outdoor structured sidewalks and the like, as well, too, but not the wilderness or something like that. The key factor, I think, which distinguished my work was – and the advantage of using schema theory, was the ability to create what I call hybrid architectures – hybrid deliberative reactive architectures. The early work in behavior-based robotics, I would say, threw the baby out with the bathwater. All the high-level reasoning and high-level planning no longer played an effective role. My work recognized that maybe we do have a cortex, and there is some value in being able to deliberate about certain things, and the schemas themselves gave us the ability to instantiate change parameters, reason over these things in ways that other forms of reactive systems, if you will, were not as easily amenable to. So the real focus of my dissertation work was hybrid deliberative architectures. The schema theory got most of the press because that’s what made the robots actually do the cool stuff that they were doing, but the deliberative side was what configured those particular control systems."

"Get a solid foundation. It’s a question of how young you’re talking about, but if you’re in high school or younger, pay attention to the basics. Pay attention to mathematics. Pay attention to chemistry and physics. Don’t be seduced by the quick pull to creating cool little robots that are moving around. You can do that. That’s okay. But you need to have a deep understanding of the fundamental principles upon which robotics, which is a science, is based upon. Pay attention to that, and work hard, and you have to have a passion for it. If you don’t have a passion for robotics – and almost any field, for that matter, as well, too – you probably shouldn’t go into it. Don’t – although you can make a good living in it, it shouldn’t be about money. It should be about joy, fulfillment, and creating new knowledge."