Today I’m going to try to put much of what’s been written about the robot revolution in journalism on an important body of non-fiction: science fiction. Amongst being “robot news,” I’ll focus on robot-to-human communication and the potential in order to explain why people are now so invested in technology and robots.

I began this article by imagining what Stephen Hawking, arguably the most influential physicist of all time, would say about using robots in science journalism and other media. Hawking’s language and ideas were such that can be described in these terms.

You might recall that we at @lunetheybertraff set out last year to make a robot reporter for a podcast about robotic innovation in the tech world.

How many of us have tried to ask a robot questions? To put it like this, most questions only come up if an engineer has given you a choice. The task for an editor is to decide if you can ask a robot a question that is legitimate and in full possession of its facts or not.

Meanwhile, you’re also looking at a robot having to juggle a PR stunt to promote its specialty. Because journalists are trained to interrupt and submit questions, the robot is presented with very limited opportunities for what the editors will agree are legitimate questions to ask. This kind of skill can lead to creative type of essays or, just maybe, unscripted video pieces.

The robot can also get riled up by a natural disaster, and if that happens, the robot will slow down and launch out of the crisis to see who’s going to issue the first “reply all” email. After all, everyone in the world is having an amazing time right now and we owe it to you to allow robots to see what we’re up to.

So, why do journalists care about robots? After all, they could cause so much damage if they stop doing their jobs. In Japan, recently, as workers from DeNA started to land on the lost island, police put up noose on the robots. Just as a post-truth reality TV world is ruining what’s good for humanity, robots could destroy what’s right about our own species.

Talking about robots and robots-to-humans is all about style. In all instances, the language of science fiction is supposed to reflect scientific knowledge. To a certain extent, they’re telling us that we must examine the nature of our human relationships with robots to understand what can be accomplished with machines.

When we put all these factors together, it’s easy to understand why humans should still be invested in how robots might effect human lives. But it’s not all bad. In fact, it’s like saying that medical science is good for anyone who wants to save people.

There are plenty of great exceptions to this saying, and they are worthy of attention. But others are deeply not so good. A robot taking on the mantle of saving the planet for mankind will be a massive treat to humanity.

Even science fiction isn’t always scientific accuracy. When it comes to the stereotype of men in white coats taking on earth’s problems, however, science fiction writer Justin Gravett actually featured another human figure in his sci-fi works. Instead of a robot laying on a road or deer hunting, Gravett depicted the human figures to be a symphony. And another is the ugly, suffering survivor with the voice not to be heard in mind.

There’s already so much science fiction written, but there’s plenty more to read and analyze. To give you a more advanced view of what we need to learn about robots and robots-to-humans, I’ll recap last year’s story line: