Technology plays a very important role in children’s world

Technology plays a very important role in children’s world. The increase in population of technology is changing the ideas of children regarding the concepts of alive or smart. During my research I found an article where they examined the impact of experience of technology exposure on children’s ideas about robot intelligence. They asked questions to 60 children are aged 4 to 7. The children were asked to identify the characteristics like psychological, biological and intellectual of 8 entities which were different from their intellectual capabilities and life status. From the research they found out that the children are gaining experience from this domain and also started to differentiate robots from other familiar entities. The finding shows that the experience increases the yield of highly development viewpoint and reflects the distinctions between biological life, artificially intelligent technologies and machines. Children thinks more deeply about the unique features of artificially intelligent entities if we exposure to robots or any intelligent technologies. Specifically, we predicted that such exposure would allow children to appreciate the distinctions between robots and other entities (like animals and machines), including the realization that fundamental concepts such as “alive” may not apply to robots in the same way as they do to other entities (Kahn, Friedman, et al., 2006).

An article “robot” was written by Bill Gates, where he said about the emergence of robots. He describes the journey of robot industries. Just 8080 microprocessor just introduced by Intel and the electronic game pong was in the market, selling by Atari. The people and the homegrown computers club were trying to figure out what to do with this new technology. To make the information age more progress the leading universities and industrial laboratories researchers were creating the building blocks. He had a vision to see the emergence of robot industry in a similar way the computer business did 30 years ago.
Think of the producing robots presently used on automobile assembly lines because the equivalent of yesterday’s mainframes. The industry’s niche merchandise embrace robotic arms that perform surgery, police investigation robots deployed in Iraq and Islamic State of Afghanistan that eliminate wayside bombs and domestic robots that vacuum the ground

Born of the Industrial Revolution’s promise of a life of plenty and leisure, robotics is firmly committed to the positive, Utopian interpretation of technology as first formulated by early thinkers such as Herbert Spencer and Henri de Saint Simon, and reinterpreted in terms of computer technology in the 20th century by the cybernetics community . Not everyone shared this view. Sociologist Sorokin , for example, imagined human advancement through technology would end in disaster. The odd, contradictory mix of awe, angst and admiration with which high-end robots are perceived today is proof of the continued vigor of the polarized viewpoints. The intellectual landscape seems firmly settled, with engineers and scientists on the positivist side, humanities scholars and artists mostly on the pessimistic side, and some interesting scholars suggesting a compromise, as it were, by claiming the future of technology to end in utter uselessness. Interestingly, this notion of similarity or equality is defined in very specific ways and along strong disciplinary assumptions and rhetorical goals. For example, as Nourbakhsh and others have observed, most robots are designed as pets or servants, benevolent and polite. Furthermore, humanoid and android robot designers tend tore-create physical perfection in their products. Ishiguro, for example, used an attractive young television moderator as a model for his most advanced and visually realistic android.

Despite their immediate appeal, beauty, benevolence and politeness are problematic machine design guidelines. They normalize android culture and create a sympathetic base for robots that the machines do not necessarily deserve. By normalizing android culture, one loses opportunities for interaction forms that are uncomfortable and problematic but potentially rich and complex. Normalized android culture leaves us the promise of a friendly utopia that might well remain unfulfilled; it promises a future that is only superficially friendly and leaves us unprepared to deal with conflicts that will likely arise with sentient machines in the future.