by 
Robotics is a red-hot industry that’s evolving by literal leaps and bounds, and the top researchers in the field are also some of sci-fi’s craziest fans.
Robin Murphy, the Raytheon professor of computer science and engineering at Texas A&M University, specializes in artificial intelligence for robotics. As part of her curriculum, she writes “Science Fiction, Science Fact,” a series of provocative, engaging articles highlighting the myriad differences between the robots and droids depicted in popular science fiction movies and the best sci-fi TV shows and current robots and autonomous machines that work in the real world.
While “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett” excel at depicting visually arresting Star Wars droids, their mechanical designs are not only impractical, but often no match for actual robots, Murphy explained in a column in the Journal. Science Robotics magazine (opens in new tab)†
In addition to being one of the top robotics headlines, she is also the preeminent author of several MIT Press books on the subject, including “Robotics Through Science Fiction.” (opens in new tab)(2018), “Introduction to AI Robotics (opens in new tab)(2001, 2018) and “Disaster Robotics” (opens in new tab)(2014). Murphy is also an expert on disaster robotics and served as director of the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue from 2002 to 2018, where she is now vice president.
Space.com spoke to Murphy about the big gap between fictional androids in hit shows like Disney Plus (opens in new tab)‘ “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett” and real advanced robots, and how modern robots can integrate into 21st century society. (This interview has been slightly edited for clarity.)
Related: Best movie robots in sci-fi
Space.com: What are the goals of your “Science Fiction, Science Fact” articles?
Murphy: With my innovative teaching, I use science fiction as case studies, and that helps students see a more complex ecosystem than just worrying about a particular algorithm and thinking bigger about timed system principles. For things that we can’t do with AI yet, we’ve seen some explorations of that in science fiction, and sometimes it’s not even vaguely correct.
For ‘Science Robotics’ I am writing this column ‘Science Fiction, Science Fact’ which bridges what is really happening in robotics with science fiction. What is possible, what is feasible, what is plausible and what can or should we really do? Or, in many cases, [if we should] think about it, because often the ethical ramifications will come out of science fiction.
Space.com: What are your specific associations with “Star Wars” and early gateway to science fiction?
Murphy: Before the first book I read that wasn’t a McGuffey Reader or “See Dick and Jane” thing, I snuck in and got my father’s copy of Robert Heinlein’s anthology “The Green Hills of Earth.” It was game on! I consider myself a Heinlein babe to this day. The first story in that book is “Delilah and the Space Rigger”, about a space station under construction. [G.] Brooks McNye, the female electrical engineer in the story, was empowered and guys might push her, but she just pushed back and kept going. And that’s pretty much been my career.
I stood in line to see”Star Warsthe second week it was 1977 when it became the phenomenon. Then, years later, I saw Kurosawa’s “The Hidden Fortress” and thought, “Ah-ha!” and realized all the similarities, especially with “Star Wars” two sidekick droids.
Related: R2-D2 Gets Real: ‘Star Wars’ Droids Already Exist
Space.com: Why are there virtually no robots in the “Star Trek” universe, compared to the many in “Star Wars”?
Murphy: Right, there are no robots in the “Star Trekuniverse, except those like Data and the Borg. I think [creator Gene] Roddenberry’s original vision was very humanistic. They are people who are good and they can do good things, embrace change, embrace new civilizations and new worlds to represent the best. There wasn’t much internal arguing.
Space.com: Will “Star Wars” get a pass for its impractical and unrealistic robot design, because it’s supposed to be set in a fictional past?
Murphy: I’ve put ‘Star Wars’ in the best B-movie series of the 1930s and 1940s. I’m not looking for any allegiance in anything technical with this. The only thing we’re missing is “Flash Gordon” and Emperor Ming. Loved how in “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett” we now have Dune’s sandworms with the Krayt dragon. “Star Wars” is a wonderful legacy, so the rules are different.
But it’s pretty hard to figure out what they do well in terms of technical stuff. And I don’t want ‘Star Wars’ to become a robot documentary, but it’s certainly not how you would do it. First, they use robots for what humans do. That never works. That never happened – never in the history of automation – and it’s really bizarre. We have educational robots, but we have R2-D2 that can understand human speech, but cannot generate human speech, even though Siri can currently generate human speech, but has an awful lot of time to understand the context. So it’s the exact opposite. Oh, it’s fun, and I love it – but there’s nothing good about it.
Look at the Krayt dragon. We have a mining town terrorized by sandworms and we are mining, but there are no robots and no automation. But that’s how we mine now! And, of course, the Chicken Runners of the Empire — if there’s one thing I’m dealing with in the “Star Wars” universe, it’s with the Ewoks. Every time I see an AT-AT or an AT-ST I think, “Come on, bring it to me, honey. I could lose this one real quick.”
Space.com: Can you watch “Star Wars” shows without your professor’s hat on for pure entertainment, or do you analyze every misplaced servo motor?
Murphy: Oh yes, yes; it’s so great. “The Mandalorian” was so good. More Baby Yoda! And IG-11 is totally unrealistic in almost every possible dimension out there, but what a great storyline.
Space.com: If you had the keys to the “Star Wars” kingdom, what would you change about the depiction of robots? Or does it not matter to the public?
Murphy: I don’t think it matters for entertainment purposes. But there’s one thing that I think is really inconsistent and would be interesting to look into. In ‘The Mandalorian’, the insect-like droid, Zero, tells Mando that he has decided to join a criminal gang. How did it decide that? How does that work? Because C-3PO and R2-D2 were owned, and they just decided they’re suddenly no longer owned by humans. Then you have it all with IG-11. He constantly threatens self-destruct, potentially killing or maiming innocent bystanders.
That self-destruct sequence is hard coded by the manufacturers to protect their intellectual property, but they would be liable for all that collateral damage. If they were a little more consistent in looking at the rules of when can a droid be free, when can it be its own agent, and who built it, that would help. What are the legal and ethical obligations associated with it?
Space.com: What are some good examples of where Hollywood robots are right?
Murphy: I love the original “Westworld” from 1973. Look how many people it took to run that park and those robots. They fix them all the time, and you kind of have that in the HBO “Westworld” series. There’s a lot to it, except, “OK, we programmed it and that’s it.”
Space.com: How do you think robots depicted in film and TV will better reflect current progress going into the future?
Murphy: I have no idea what they aim for in movies. I really enjoyed the first three ‘Terminator’ movies and even the last one, ‘Terminator: Dark Fate’. Then you have to go back to the classics. I loved “2001: A space odyssey“and you can argue whether HAL is a robot or not. Yes, it is. It can use syntax and affect change in the world. “The Day The Earth Stood Still” is still one of my favorites. I look at what is going on in Ukraine, and I think, where is Gort when you need him? And the replicants in “Blade RunnerSo I think in the movies we’re going to see more of things like “The Book of Boba Fett,” where there’s a herd of three Boston Dynamics Spot robots. And in “Loki,” there was a security robot that bumbled through. And Fennec is finally using a drone. Even Mars rovers carry drones now!
We completely ignore marine vehicles and underwater things. But I think the things that we’ll see in the future is that robots will be more accurate as props. Robots as characters don’t work very well because they’re not a human equivalent, and we’re not really making much progress in that area. You can keep doing “Ex Machina” – a great movie, but not very realistic.
We should talk more about extrapolating legal and ethical issues with robots. You see groups like the European Union who want to do robots good and say we should treat them ethically. But we are completely wrong in terms of manufacturing reliability. drones are basically flying weed crackers. What about all the self-driving cars – the accidents and deaths? Obviously, the testing methods are disabled. One of the downsides of the sci-fi movies that focus on fun robots that are more human-like undermines the real issues we’ll face in the coming years.
follow us on twitter @Spacedotcom and further facebook†
