美国总统唐纳德·特朗普开玩笑说，如果他的嗓子撑不住11月国会选举前集会上的演讲节奏，那么他就需要一个机器人替身。美国总统在白宫说，我们前面还有几站，要做很多演讲。我希望，我的嗓子能挺得住。如果我的嗓子能坚持，我们共和党在选举中将处于一个很好的势态。
US President Donald Trump joked that if his voice cannot sustain the speech pace at rallies before the November congressional elections, he will need a robot stand-in. The US president said at the White House, "We have several stops ahead, many speeches to make. I hope my voice holds up. If my voice can hold, we Republicans will be in a very good position in the election."
特朗普还说，他在不同州的演讲帮助了共和党人竞选。他喜欢在支持者面前发表演讲，这类活动的氛围令人愉快。特朗普指出，但我只有一个嗓子。也许我能弄到现在那些漂亮的机器人。让它们成为我的复制品，没人能分辨出来。它们做得相当不错。我们送它们去参加竞选活动吧。我可以坐在家里在电视上看着它们。
Trump also said his speeches in different states helped Republican campaigns. He likes speaking before supporters; the atmosphere at such events is pleasant. Trump pointed out, "But I only have one voice. Maybe I can get those beautiful robots now. Let them be my replicas—nobody can tell the difference. They do quite well. Let's send them to campaign events. I can sit at home watching them on TV."
这话是玩笑，但玩笑里有一个正在变成现实的判断。特朗普说的那些漂亮的机器人，指的是人形机器人。他说没人能分辨出来，指的是人形机器人在外观和动作上已经能做到接近真人的程度。他说我可以坐在家里在电视上看着它们，指的是远程操控和自主运行能力。这三个判断，对应的是人形机器人当前技术进展的三个具体方向，外观拟人化、动作自然化、远程或自主运行。前面讨论过优必选U1系列面部可呈现30余种微表情，也讨论过星尘智能用一部旧手机驱动双足机器人，还讨论过云深处的人形机器人在西湖路口协助交警执勤。这些案例说明，特朗普玩笑里的三个判断，在技术上都不是空想。
This is a joke, but within the joke is a judgment becoming reality. The "beautiful robots" Trump mentioned refer to humanoid robots. His "nobody can tell the difference" refers to humanoid robots achieving near-human appearance and movement. His "I can sit at home watching them on TV" refers to remote control and autonomous operation capabilities. These three judgments correspond to three specific directions in humanoid robot current technology progress—anthropomorphic appearance, natural movement, and remote or autonomous operation. Earlier we discussed UBTECH's U1 series displaying over 30 micro-expressions, Astribot using an old phone to drive a bipedal robot, and Deep Robotics' humanoid robot assisting traffic police at a West Lake intersection. These cases show the three judgments in Trump's joke are not fantasy technically.
但玩笑里也点出了一个真实的问题，公众人物用机器人替身，法律和伦理上怎么界定。如果一台机器人以特朗普的形象出现，发表了某种言论，这个言论算不算特朗普本人的言论。如果不算，那它在竞选活动中的行为该由谁负责。如果算，那是否意味着公众人物可以用机器人来规避某些言论责任。这些问题和前面讨论的机器人进家庭的伦理法律障碍是同一类问题。技术在快速进步，但法律和伦理的框架还没有跟上。特朗普的玩笑，可能无意中触及了一个未来几年会反复出现的问题，当机器人越来越像人，人和机器人的边界在哪里。
But the joke also points to a real problem—how to define robot stand-ins for public figures legally and ethically. If a robot appears in Trump's image and makes some statement, does that statement count as Trump's own. If not, who is responsible for its behavior at campaign events. If so, does it mean public figures can use robots to evade certain speech responsibilities. These questions are the same class as the ethical and legal obstacles to robots entering homes discussed earlier. Technology is advancing rapidly, but legal and ethical frameworks have not kept up. Trump's joke may have inadvertently touched on a problem that will repeatedly appear in coming years—when robots increasingly resemble humans, where is the boundary between humans and robots.
