In our final interview in The Robot Economy series, we speak with Mady Delvaux, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and Chair of the Working Group on robotics. Mady has written an extensive draft report “Civil Law Rules on Robotics,” and proposes the creation of a legal framework for automation and ways to promote European industry.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

I believe that robots will impact the economy positively because it will allow us to be more competitive. I would like European industry to be strong, and to continue to produce in Europe rather than delocalise. I believe robots could be instrumental in bringing industry back to Europe. You always need innovation, innovation is positive for Europe, and there are so many synergies between different sectors of European industry.

It’s my first mandate as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). The European Parliament can propose laws through reports provided to the European Commission, which is then able to legislate.

I’m a member of the committee on Legal Affairs, and decided to lobby colleagues to set up a working group on robotics. I chaired the committee, which brought together members from every political party, and members from other committees on employment, civil liberties, and industry. We also invited experts, that’s one of the nice things about being an MEP, you identify people you would like to talk to, and they are happy to join! We had monthly working group meetings which resulted in a report.

The report looks at how we can promote European industry, while emphasizing robots that are friendly to humans. We need a high standard for robots in terms of safety and security. There are also many issues around liability and legislation which are not yet urgent, but may be in 10-15 years. And then there is the “jobs discussion” we read about in the media. The reality is that no one really knows what the impact will be. We’ve asked the European Commission to closely monitor the employment market, so that we can know what jobs are taken over, and which jobs aren’t. If robots do destroy jobs, then we need to think about how to finance the social systems. This could be through a tax on robots, perhaps to insure a Basic Universal Income. Industry is alarmed, but we should at least think about this. The goal is really to be prepared in case this displacement does happen. Another issue is privacy, robots typically only work if they are connected, and then the question is who owns the data, and who has access to it.

What are some of the recommendations from the report?

We asked the European Commission to put up a register that defines categories for robots and keeps track of them, what they do, and where they are. We already do this with cars for example.

On ethics, we suggested the creation of Research Ethics Committees (REC) in universities to think of the ethical aspects of the work they are doing. In the health sector, prosthetics and implants, raise questions around the enhancement of human capabilities. There is also a question about equality, who has access to robot technology, who will pay for it, and how can knowledge be evenly distributed?

What are some of the positive aspects highlighted?

Robots can facilitate the life of people. Technology is usually developed to make life easier, but there is always a bright side, and a dark side. We need a responsible way to interact with robots. Interactions will be more complex in all sectors, for example in agriculture, health, elder care, or education. Robots could be an excellent tool for teachers, but there are other domains where robots shouldn’t be used. Many worry about the human aspect. But there may also be a danger with the development of android robots, that could be confused with humans. Robots shouldn’t be confusing. I personally believe in having a human in the loop.

Has your view about robotics changed since you’ve started working on the report?

I didn’t know anything about robots, and I don’t like science fiction. I’ve learned a lot through the making of this report, and it has completely changed my view. At the start I was a bit sceptical, I am now more friendly to the technology.

How should we communicate about robotics?

We should use all channels, and simple messages. Robots have strongly reduced the number of accidents in the oil and gas industry, why don’t we say it! These should be the headlines.

What can we expect next with the report?

Committees are working on the draft report to provide their opinion, the deadline for feedback is end of October. I hope that we will then have a procedure committee, followed by a plenary two months later. Overall, I hope we will have a vote in the European Parliament in January. The European Commission would then receive the report, and decide to accept the recommendations.

This is the final article in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one here and part two here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

In today’s interview, we sat down with Alan Manning, Professor of Labour Economics at the London School of Economics. He is a leading author in his field, particularly in understanding the imperfections of labour markets.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

Like any new technology, there will be winners and losers. On the whole, however, I believe there will be more winners.

Who will the winners be?

The winners will mostly be two groups: First robots will be used by firms to make production cheaper, which will in turn lower prices, and benefit the consumer. Second, because consumers are getting products cheaper, they will have more money to spend, which will boost the economy as a whole.

There have been discussions about robotics increasing inequality, and a tax on automation as a way to counter this. What do you think?

Don’t tax automation, let automation happen and then correct its effects. Redistribution of wealth should be done amongst the workers by taxing high wage workers more, and redistributing these earnings to low-wage workers. Overall, I don’t think robots will necessarily raise inequality but if it does, we have well-established ways to respond to that.

Are there differences in the way Europe, the US, Japan or China perceive the robot economy?

There has been a very long history of people worrying about new technology lowering wages and bringing upon the end of work. I think those fears are exaggerated.

Perception is broadly similar across the different regions – but problems in the labour market are slightly different from one country to the other. In the US they worry about stagnation and a jobless recovery. In the UK, we haven’t had stagnation, but we worry about the quality of jobs and the lowering of living standards. In Europe, the worry is about joblessness. Right now there is a tendency to blame robots for all of these problems, and it plays into the general lack of optimism.

Could robots be a solution to the perceived slouch in the economy?

More investment in modern technology, including robotics, would help increase productivity. Historically, rising productivity has improved everyone’s living standards. If optimism about the opportunities that new technology offers could suffuse the economy that would do something to off-set the pessimism that has taken hold.

Yet the media are constantly reporting on the high percentage of jobs that may be “replaced” by robots. Do you have a number to give us?

If I had to give a number, I would say that the impact of new technology on jobs is zero. Meaning that the net percentage of people employed will stay the same overall.

Numbers reported on in mainstream media are often misinterpreted as being predictions, the simplistic conclusion is read as “40 % of jobs will disappear”. I don’t think that’s the right interpretation even if 40% of occupations are affected by robots. The main problem is that this approach looks directly at specific jobs that are affected instead of looking at jobs overall. It is clear that there will be occupations where opportunities will fall because of robots. Other opportunities will also be created due to an increase in spending power. These will not necessarily be new jobs, just more old jobs as consumers spend the extra spending money that comes from the falling prices caused by new technology.

What should we be thinking about regarding regulation to make the most of the robot economy?

One issue is whether people will feel comfortable having a job a done by a robot, that was previously done by a human. Will they be happy with autonomous cars, or autonomous doctors? Regulation can ensure that technology is really better at these tasks before they are deployed, and can help reassure those who show resistance to the technology.

Another issue is intellectual property (IP). Robotics is the source of new knowledge, knowledge can be spread freely across everyone. However, if we are aggressive with IP, we will limit the extent of use of this technology, which would reduce competition in the market. It would help to think a bit more about the consequences of our IP laws and how they are going to help.

Ideally, we would want to have as many people as possible who can understand, have access to, and use this technology. Obviously, you have to strike a balance by providing incentives to motivate people to improve knowledge, but without allowing them to entirely keep that knowledge for themselves.

This is the second in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one, here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

Positively for sure. But the debate around robots and jobs is too polarized. People seem to pick sides, either believing “robots are going to take all our jobs”, or “it’s all going to be fine – far more new jobs will be created than old ones lost”. My view is that there is no single answer. The extent to which robots replace jobs depends on the specific robot and the job. You need to unpick the context on a case-by-case basis. It’s quite a nuanced question. As a result, it’s very hard to figure out how this will average out in terms of net number of jobs gained or lost.

Do you have concrete examples of where robots might impact the job market?

My bigger worry is AI, rather than physical robots. Knowledge workers (lawyers, call centre workers, translators, data analysts, etc) are more at risk from AI than physical workers are from robots. A robot is a much more difficult technology to mature and deploy. And in almost every situation where we think robots might be useful, we find that what we really need are collaborative robots that work alongside humans. That’s because most physical jobs that we do cannot be fully automated. The jobs that can be fully automated, for example assembly line manufacturing, have been already.

We should also be thinking about which areas are right for automation. Warehouses and logistics are one area where robots are already making big inroads. We’re seeing examples with Kiva and Amazon, but there is still a long way to go. Of course, these are often low-wage jobs with zero hours contracts and are physically demanding. I can also see robotics having a huge impact in the area of precision-agriculture, crop picking and harvesting. At the same time, we do not want people to be left out of work.

How can we help people through the transition should they lose their job?

I think there may be a case for an automation or redeployment tax. Companies who automate and hence lay off large numbers of low-paid workers have a duty to those workers. If companies don’t voluntarily – and generously – help those individuals through redeployment or training, then the government should step in. The last resort could be a special tax.

There has been a lot of discussion about driverless cars and their impact on the economy, what do you think?

It is going to take a lot of time before we see driverless cars and trucks on the roads, the technology is not ready. It comes back to this essential problem of whether the car requires human assistance or is fully autonomous. The recent fatal accident with a Tesla car tragically showed that it’s a very bad idea to require a human in the loop. If you have nothing to do then it’s very difficult to maintain full attention on the road, so the idea that the driver can immediately snap back and resume control is crazy; this is an unsolved problem. The Tesla accident also illustrated that robot perception is not good enough, there are lots of situations on streets and highways where the robot will be blind to what’s going on because of weaknesses in sensing and cognition.

What positive impact will robots have on the economy?

In the near term, robots will create opportunities for new types of jobs. The lesson of the last 20 years of the digital society is that it’s very hard to anticipate what these jobs will be. If we had sat down and had this conversation about the Internet in 1996, I doubt we would have predicted 10% of the IT related jobs that exist today. The point is that new technology generates new ways of being creative. We will obviously need more people to maintain robots, but there will also be a new range of businesses and entrepreneurial activities. We’re already seeing this in our incubator. Think about Open Bionics who 3D print prosthetics. Who would have thought robotics could be used in this way! As the technology improves, there is a wonderful scope for wearable robotics. And it’s not just people who’ve lost limbs, wearables could benefit the elderly, and disabled too. I really hope wheelchairs will be a thing of the past.

In the long term, it’s important that wealth creation brought about through robotics is shared by all. A Universal Basic Income is the only logical solution. Ultimately, and I’m talking a hundred or so years into the future, wouldn’t it be great to live in a post-scarcity society where essentially all of the work that most humans don’t want to do is done by robots. We should look forward to a future where there are no demeaning, physically or mentally debilitating jobs. This would leave time to do sports, arts, write books, do science. My “robotopia” is a kind of Star Trek society where work is essentially a voluntary activity. Robotics could enable that, but only if wealth creation is shared with all in society. We desperately need to ensure that the wealth is not captured exclusively by the companies who own the robots, and the 0.1% who own those companies. If we fail to do this, we risk increasing poverty and inequality. What’s the point of robots making things if people can’t afford to buy them?

There is a lot of misinformation about the robot economy, how can we improve the public discourse?

We need to make the point that there is a difference between AI (the software kind) and physical robots. Both are often confused in the public discourse.

Furthermore, it’s all about nuance. We’re not talking about robots replacing jobs, but about robots performing tasks. A lot of jobs have components that a robot can’t do, the classical example is the elder care worker. If you ask people, “would you like to see robots in care homes?”, they tend to say no. But if you ask a different question, for example, if they would like a robot to support someone with personal hygiene, then you get a different answer. People think it would be wonderful as it restores dignity. In my mind, the benefit of robots in a care home is that they free up human workers to provide the human touch, spend time in a conversation, for example. When I talk to care workers, they love the human contact and hate the routine tasks of managing people’s physical needs, which take time away from sitting down and having a chat. It’s a wonderful example where the right kind of division of labour can be actually very positive, both for the service users, and caregivers.

Who should decide what applications of robotics are beneficial for the economy?

The whole of society needs to have a say in this – there needs to be a conversation. This is already happening through the Eurobarometer survey and the many public engagement events around Europe. In addition, I think there needs to be some kind of body whose job it is to worry about this. It could be a Royal Commission, or an EU body, which seeks advice from society at large to build an understanding of how ordinary people respond to these questions – when presented with the nuanced story, not the black and white one presented by the media. Companies have a stake in this. At the end of the day, what they do needs to be accepted by society at large and should be reflected in standards and regulation. In fact, a new set of ethical guidelines were recently published by the British Standards Institute: “BS8611: Robots and robotic devices. Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems“.

If a company wants to be successful, they should aim to get the “stamp” saying that their robot conforms with the relevant standards. Regulation is a shorthand way for the government to reassure us. Public trust in robots will come about through both regulation and public engagement. Why do we trust commercial airliners? It’s a highly regulated industry with very tough standards and robust protocols for investigating accidents. The lessons from commercial aircraft should be transferred to robotics. Tesla is an example of the need for regulation. As far as we know there are no published standards against which their Autopilot has been formally validated – and until there are – it cannot be trusted.

This is the first in a series of three interviews about the robot economy.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

The panel discussion was excellent, and the response by economist Carlota Perez was engaging and thought provoking – check here for the Storified tweets and pictures. Perhaps the thing that surprised me the most, given the serious economists on the panel (FT, The Economist) was that the panel ended up agreeing that the Robot Economy will necessitate something like a Living Wage. Music to this socialist’s ears.

In my contribution: The Next Big Things in Robotics (pages 38-44) I do a bit of near-future gazing and suggest four aspects of robotics that will, I think, be huge. They are:

• Wearable Robotics
• Immersive Teleoperated Robots
• Driverless Cars
• Soft Robotics

To see why I chose these – and to read the other great articles – please download the book. Let me know if you disagree with my choice, or to suggest other Next Big Things in robotics. I end my chapter with a section called What’s not coming soon: super intelligent robots

“My predicted things that will be really big in robotics don’t need to be super intelligent. Wearable robots will need advanced adaptive (and very safe and reliable) control systems, as well as advanced neural–electronics interfaces, and these are coming. But ultimately it’s the human wearing the robot who is in charge. The same is true for teleoperated robots: again, greater low–level intelligence is needed, so that the robot can operate autonomously some of the time but ask for help when it can’t figure out what to do next. But the high–level intelligence remains with the human operator and – with advanced immersive interfaces as I have suggested – human and robot work together seamlessly. The most autonomous of the next big things in robotics is the driverless car, but again the car doesn’t need to be very smart. You don’t need to debate philosophy with your car – just trust it to take you safely from A to B.”