The field of cobots, which are “collaborative robots” operate with, and in close proximity, to human beings to assist them with their tasks. Indeed, cobots are intentionally devised to physically interact with people in a shared environment. Although corporations tend to push applications that foster dependency, these systems can be extremely helpful in assisted living and in dangerous workspaces. Some references follow:

http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/i-cobot-future-collaboration-of-man-and-machine/

https://ifr.org/downloads/papers/IFR_Demystifying_Collaborative_Robots.pdf

http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/12169

Both ... and fear if the competition factor prevails, replacing the natural human with artificial intelligence and robots

Collaboration, but you can see some pessimistic estimation points of view in these discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AI_as_expert_for_Analytic_hierarchy_process

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Augmented_Reality_is_a_bridge_between_Artificiall_Intelligence_and_humans

Human-machine interaction (as a research area) studies the interactive relationship between humans and computers. It is more than user interfaces and more than "screen depth" [Computer Science and Technology Board - National Research Council, 1997]; it is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses many areas of activity (Helander et al. 1997). For the first ten years of its fifteen-year history, HCI focused on interfaces (specifically, the capabilities and design criteria of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) using windows, icons, menus, and pointing devices (WIMP)) to create more usable systems. As soon as the problems of interfaces became better understood, the primary problems of human-machine interaction began to shift beyond the interface (they reacted to the comments formulated by D. Engelbart: “If ease of use were the only significant criterion, people would hold on to tricycles and would never try a bicycle "). More recent goals of HCI research [Fisher, 1993a] are related to objectives, general understanding, explanations, justifications, and challenging actions, and not only with interfaces. The new challenges are to improve the way people use computers to work, think, communicate, learn, criticize, explain, argue, discuss, observe, make decisions, compute, model, and design.

Collaborative human-machine systems. Some of the beginnings in user modeling were derived from the need and desire to provide better support for human-computer collaboration. In this context, “collaboration” is defined as “a process in which two or more agents work together to achieve common goals” [Tirvin, 1995]. Some fundamental issues (such as shared goals, overall context, governance, (co-) adaptation, (co-) development and learning) can be inferred from this definition.

Human-machine collaboration can be approached from two different perspectives: an emulating approach and a complementary approach. The emulating approach is based on the metaphor of improving the joint activities of a person and a computer by endowing the computer with human-like abilities. The complementary approach is based on the fact that computers are not people and human-centered design should take advantage of this asymmetry between people and computers by developing new opportunities for interaction and collaboration [Sachman, 1987].

Historically, the main focus in user modeling has been on the human emulation approach (see, for example, [Cobsa and Walster, 1989] and the chapter on user and speech modeling [Maybury and Walster, 1998]). However, due to the limited success of the emulating approach, interest began to shift more and more towards the complementary approach [Bobrov, 1991]. There is growing evidence that user modeling problems in a complementary approach are easier to handle, more plausible, and preferable, as evidenced by their increasing influence on the development of commercial rich applications [Horwitz et al. 1998]. A similar shift taking place in the ITS community is described by Kei in her article [Kei, 2000].

An implicit communication channel supports communication processes that require a computer to be provided with a significant amount of knowledge about subject areas, about the messaging processes, and about the agents involved.

Domain knowledge: General knowledge is formed from a large body of knowledge related to specific areas. This knowledge limits the number of possible actions and limits the achievable goals and operations in the field of specific users, thus supporting the interaction between the person and his domain of tasks, and not just human-machine interaction [Fisher, 1994; Gorvits et al., 1998].

Knowledge of the communication process: The information structures that govern the communication process must be accessible and changeable by the user. An interactive knowledge-based human-machine system must have knowledge of when and where to help the user, interrupt the user and offer him information arising from the context of the problem being solved [Fisher and Stevens, 1987; Horvits, 1999].

Knowledge about the communication agent: “Typical” user of the system does not exist; there are many different types of users, and the requirements of a particular user usually change with experience [McKay, 1991]. Simple classification schemes based on stereotypes [Rich, 1989] such as "novice", "advanced user" or "expert" are not suitable for complex intelligent (knowledge-based) systems because these attributes become dependent on partial context. rather than applicable to users in general. One of the main goals of user modeling is to solve the problem that systems will not be able to interact with users until they have the means to discover what the user actually knows and does. Ways to achieve this include: (1) user learnability (eg, through questionnaires, setting preferences, or specification components [Nakakoji, 1993]); (2) the ability to infer this from user actions (eg, using criticism [Fisher et al. 1991; Mastaglio 1990]) or usage data [Adashi, 1998; Hill et al., 1992]; and (3) related information about events external to the system [Bolt, 1984; Harper et al., 1992].

Say the “right” words at the “right” time and in the “right” way. The problem of an information-rich world (in which human attention is the most valuable and scarce commodity) is not only to make information available to people at any time, from any place and in any form, but also to reduce information overload. making the information relevant to the task at hand and to the intended accumulated knowledge of the user. Methods for saying "the right" words include: (1) maintaining differing descriptions that relate new information to information and concepts that are supposed to be known to a particular user, and (2) built-in criticism systems [Fisher et al. 1998], which make information more relevant to the task at hand by generating real-time interactions, on demand, and suitable for individual users as needed. They are able to do this by taking advantage of the richer context provided by the problem orientation of the environment by analyzing partially generated artifacts and partially completed specifications. To say something at the “right” time requires balancing the costs of intrusive interruptions and the loss of contextual sensitivity of deferred warnings [Horvits et al. 1999]. Talking about something in the “right” way (for example, using a multimedia channel to use different channels of perception) is especially critical for people who may suffer from disabilities [Stephanides, 2000].

Regards, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich

Machines are helping hand to human beings not competitor

Thank you, Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich for your interesting comments. To continue your description of human-machine systems I'd like to give an additional remark that a bridge between Artificial Intelligence and humans is Augmented Reality: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Augmented_Reality_is_a_bridge_between_Artificiall_Intelligence_and_humans

Preprint The role of Artificial Intelligence in cross-platform tailor...

Cooperation between humans and machine will be balancing and better options. In near future compitition will be there and machines such as robots could replace millions of people jobs. Let's hope for the Best

Of course, it is cooperation between man and machine, not competition

Renaud Di Francesco

As Zorica Popović

According to my views, I think there should be no competition between man and machine. because what man can do machine can't and what machine can do man can't. So there is no point of discussion in competition.

But yeah in co-operation we can discuss many things like with the help of machine man can make his and surrounding life easy.but also we need to understand the cost. at which cost we're getting/doing it. if we're polluting environment to make our life easy, so we have to be ready to face so many new problem in future generations.

It is both acutally, because regarding job oppurtunities the employers would seek out employees who work more ours without needing much annual leaves and capablr of working efficiently and regarding this point thr robots can almost beat humans in this.

Regarding co operation, it is almost a stated fact nowadays that we can not function on a daily basis without the access of technology in many aspects of our days. So definitely there is a co operation and dependance on them.

I think we're in a vicious circle.

Manpower and machine are both important and complement each other.

@ lsam Alkhalifawi l want to agree with you that indeed this is a vicious circle comparable to the story of an egg and chick. Technology ( read machines) ensues from human intellect and separating the two may take us through all manners of arguments. Equally advancing cases for or against may be gigantic task or quantifying or qualifying which one is more important than the other could just be a mirage. Will that therefore be the end of our thinking capacity ( etc.)? Over to you colleagues!

The field of cobots, which are “collaborative robots” operate with, and in close proximity, to human beings to assist them with their tasks. Indeed, cobots are intentionally devised to physically interact with people in a shared environment. Although corporations tend to push applications that foster dependency, these systems can be extremely helpful in assisted living and in dangerous workspaces. Some references follow:

http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/i-cobot-future-collaboration-of-man-and-machine/

https://ifr.org/downloads/papers/IFR_Demystifying_Collaborative_Robots.pdf

http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/12169

@ Nikolaos Andreopoulos thanks for such insightful information to those of us in HR practice and people management . Its imperative and clear we must change the way of doing things and thinking to remain relevant in the ensuing collaboration between human and machines.

The machine is the creation of the human mind designed to perform a job that a person cannot continue to perform accurately for a long time, so most of the human tasks will be performed by machines in the future and this can be called cooperation that will displace the human element from many jobs

Dear Renaud Di Francesco ,

This is always a dilemma. It looks like the case of "whoever came the chicken or the egg first".

Do machines/robots automations replace human?

Today and in the near future, machines perform more and more elaborate services, and without getting tired or complaining about wages. People with less knowledge end up being harmed. What is solution?

I believe that the human being is absolutely fantastic given achievements of the species and organic fragility of people. I think that some tasks performed today are not noble tasks for a human being. We should dedicate human species to tasks that only humans can perform efficiently and with the authority that they manage, skills, wills, knowledge, intelligence, emotions, character and ethics.

That said, I don't think machines should be a risk to species that developed them.

We do need to give opportunity for human beings with less knowledge to learn new skills and professions that are more noble than machines will ever be able to accomplish.

I hope I helped a little in your discussion.

Thanks.

Regards,

Wiltgen

Filipe Wiltgen , interesting contribution, thanks!

It leads me to another aspect: my fingers operate with at best millimetric precision. I could never draw silicon lines as machines do, to create VLSI which are found in everyday objects like phones, cars, kitchen appliances.

My finger can sew and repair clothing and fabric, but I would never as regular as a sewing machine. However people buy clothes and fabric which are irregular by design, for this very specific "human touch" of "hand made". Isn't it a new path too?

I have heard at an event of the European Parliament a presentation by a visionary clothing designer, who said he bet on 1960 knitting machinery, where there is a human operator, instead of the more complex more automated machines of today. In his view, this is keeping a "human touch", halfway between hand-made and machine-made.

I wonder if the current trend to using bicycles in cities participates to something similar: you can pedal with your muscles. Some hybrid bicycles have also an electrical engine and battery: you can pedal, and potentially be in addition supported electrically (imagine a coast up, or a hot summer day when you do not want to sweat). This is about the relation between our body and the world, mediated partially or not by machines...

Input welcome on this body-machine-world triangle...

Dear Renaud Di Francesco ,

The man-machine relationship comes from the first prehistoric tool.

As I said before, does a human being have much more noble and important tasks to perform than constructing microchips by hand. Do not you think?

The issue is not in using the machine as a tool, it has been done for centuries and it helps humanity. The point is to let machines always be tools.

At moment when one admires any technology, whose only function is to serve as a tool (example: AI programming), and this seems to be extremely important for humanity, humanity loses good opportunity to evolve.

Giving a human touch (Handmade), does not characterize that human being is really doing something relevant, it may be just a simulated subterfuge that just seems to be human, as I said due to purposeful failures, which arise from typical human manual tasks like in sewing clothes. Several programs have codes implemented to not be exact as every good machine has always done.

I worry about the moment when the codes will be so good that we won't really know if it's "made by machine" or "made by human hands"!

The man-machine relationship must always be limited, so that they are always seen as tools and not as essential. This includes a good old hill up on a bicycle and without the help of an engine. It is different when your effort is worth it is a reward. No machine can overcome this! This is the real world in my life!!!

Regards,

Wiltgen