A decade ago, Kate Dar-
ling asked a friend to hold
a Pleo toy dino-bot upside
down until it squirmed and
whined. Because Darling isn’t
a sociopath, it upset her—and
spurred her to begin explor-
ing the strange new frontier of
human-robot interaction. Now
an outspoken researcher at
MIT, she is writing a book, The
New Breed, about our budding
relationships with robots in the
context of how we’ve treated
animals throughout history.
Consider that in the Mid-
dle Ages, Europeans put
cows and other animals on
trial for killing people. They
believed animals had moral
agency. The temptation, as
robots become more sophisti-
cated and social, is to assume
they’re working with similar
agency when really they’re
just a collection of 1s and 0s. “I
don’t think anybody wants to
put robots on trial for crimes
they’ve committed,” Darling
says, “but it shows we’ve
had different solutions to this
throughout history.”
Darling wants us all to
start grappling with the novel
and powerful bonds that are
sure to develop between
humans and robots. “Do we
need things like laws around
assigning responsibility for
harm because people have
biases when interacting with
robots that they don’t have
with other devices?” she asks.
Best to find common ground
now, because it’s not so hard
to imagine a future in which
the bots are holding us upside
down. —Matt SimonROBOTICS
KateDarling
RESEARCH SPECIALIST /
MIT Media LabPreparing humans for life
with robots.IN THE MID-1990S, when the internet was
in its infancy, some companies thought they
could build a better version of it. One of them
was Microsoft, which envisioned a network
that would be faster and more capacious,
able to handle a new thing called multimedia.
This was the infamous Information Super-
highway. There was just one hitch: It likely
would have been a proprietary network—a
toll road. “Can you imagine how horrible that
would have been?” says Dominic Williams.
We escaped that nightmare, but Williams
says we’ve stumbled straight into another:
cloud computing. The cloud is now nearly
as crucial as the internet itself, key infra-
structure for data storage and high-powered
processing. And it’s dominated by tech giants
like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft.
Williams believes there should be a public
option. He calls his plan the Internet Com-
puter. Think of it as an extension of the
internet, with the tools of cloud computing
baked into the protocol. And, like the web,
it won’t be controlled by a single company.
Instead, it will be open, maintained by a
Switzerland-based foundation (of which
Williams’ startup, Dfinity, will be a member)
and powered by independent data centers
worldwide. To preserve order (and secu-
rity) in this decentralized system, Williams
is using elements of blockchain technology.
The idea is that little guys should be less
dependent on Big Tech for computing infra-
structure. But Williams goes further. He
thinks the Internet Computer could spawn
consumer tech companies that will build
open services to mirror (and rival) tech
giants. It’s a fix, he says, for “platform risk”:
when a big company lures in startups to build
products that rely on the giant’s troves of user
data, only to cut off access to that data later.
Taking on Amazon Web Services and Goo-
gle Cloud? Overhauling the web’s infrastruc-
ture? A skeptic could point out that it has
already taken years, lavish funding, and top
cryptography talent to design a system that’s
secure and usable enough to have a prayer
at taking on Big Tech. But Williams is unde-
terred: “It’s what we feel the world needs.”
He’ll soon get a sense of what the world
wants: A test version of the Internet Com-
puter goes live this fall. —GREGORY BARBER