I’ve covered this before- the point of the statement isn’t that there’s some sort of robot racism- and the original study isn’t referring to “white” like paper or snow, and “black” like night or like ink on paper. It refers to the use of flesh tones in “human likeness” robots- and how overwhelmingly, the majority of robots made to mimic humans are made in lighter flesh tones most would call “white skin tones.”
The original study wasn’t about “racism” either- it was about the possible racial biases there. The biases in design that factor in to the choice to use lighter skin tones (things like many robot designers are “light skinned”), things like the preferences that most users in many studies report or show towards “light skinned robots” when presented with either a real or hypothetical choice between human-like robots of different skin tones.
Some of it is overlap with classic areas of design and color choice- often times wide groups of people have certain preference or emotional reactions to various colors- blue is generally “calming” red can often illicit appetite. Certain colors can cause people to feel less at ease, or less hungry, more irritable... and so on. Dark and light shades of colors have various effects on perception- and some aspects of that carry over to people. Many Yellows in clothing are generally are considered to look better on darker skinned people in fashion for example.
And the entire point isn’t that it’s “racist” to show bias to a certain type of robot. It’s a 2 way street. Understanding the biases and preferences of people in interacting with robots is important. If human-like robots were used as helpers in nursing homes or mental health facilities- they’d want to design robots that would cause the least distress or most comfort for those people right? Crossing the “uncanny valley” between a human/like robot that is human enough to make us uncomfortable but not human enough to elicit empathy- requires understanding how humans think and feel about design cues of robots.
The two way street of course, is that where there is bias- there is the possibility of discrimination right? The clear difference is that an intelligent person realizes that bias exists in all people- when we are self aware and realize our biases; or have them pointed out to us, if we let those biases influence the way we handle situations with people of different groups- that CAN be racism.
Long story short- the use of the term “racism” here is flat out wrong and meant to be reactionary. But to dismiss the premise behind the actual argument is foolish.
its not racism, white is the cheapest pain, and it stops them from absorbing heat from light. Also, it is white like snow, the robots are bot peach colored
@dr_richard_ew- I must check out this chat. I don’t get into the chat section often. Glad you’re doing ok. Hopefully we can put this all behind us soon enough- and you’ve gathered enough data from this incident to fine tune your master plan for world domination.
@zombie_slayer- the point of the original source isn’t “white” like “white paint.” It’s “white” like skin tone- specifically in “human-like” robots- and it wasn’t that it is “racist” that’s just sensationalism and laziness in summarizing the source on the part of the article writer. The question is one of bias and WHY “white” fake skin is more common on robots. As for paint- a primary shade or color isn’t inherently racist in any way. However understanding why design choices are made and how humans react to them is itself a science- not about racism but perception- although some of the lessons can give insight to racism or racial bias.
Also I just realized the dude commenting is Ken Bone lol
Stay healthy!