Healthcare staff and bank clerks have been on the front line of the health and economic crises striking the UK, but behind the scenes, another group of workers robots have been toiling away and overcoming both emergencies with no fear of COVID-19. But will COVID-19 speed up the rise of robots?

Robotic Process Automation(RPA)is software that robotizes repetitive back-office tasks. The National Health Service(NHS)has used it during the widespread disease to control demand and capacity planning in caring for all levels of patients day and night. Jason Kingdon, Blue Prism’s new chief executive who is recovering from COVID-19, says, “Before RPA, these were manual processes. You had to train a number of staff to put them in place. Now, you only need to train a single robot to manage the administration.” More than two fifths of bosses across 45 countries that responded to a survey by EY(Ernst &Young) said they were planning on accelerating spending on automation technology to prepare for a post-Covid world.

COVID-19 has already left tens of millions unemployed, so firms won’t be short of cheap labour on the other side of the crisis. But experts still think AI will be the more cautious choice for companies. One of them said, “It’s important to remember that even in China, which has much lower wages, 12.5 million manufacturing jobs have been cut over the past four years as more robots have been adopted.”

However, AI is overhyped in many ways and poor application could lead to a rise in anxiety towards automation. Again, we should think of history as a guide. A lot of workers riots in the early 19th century happened during the continental blockade of the Napoleonic Wars when there was significant mess to trade in Britain. These things are not unrelated.

Like Marty McFly’s banana-powered DeLorean （德罗宁时光机）,a future generation of flying cars could tip over the idea that all flying is bad for the climate. Firms such as the Rolls Royce, Lilium and Vertical Aerospace have argued that flying cars could be a green mode of transport despite the large amounts of energy they need to get off the ground.

One study into the environmental impact of such vertical （垂直的）takeoff and landing （(VTOL)） vehicles suggests their backers could be right — at least in some circumstances. Gregory Keoleian at the University of Michigan and colleagues found that VTOLs, if they ever took to the skies, would produce 6 per cent less emissions than an electric car over a 100-kilometre journey. "The VTOL is particularly energy intensive （集中的）during takeoff and landing. The flight phase,however,is much more efficient,and over long distances,makes fully loaded VTOLs competitive with ground based vehicles," says Keoleian. Flying cars would also have the advantage of being able to fly in a straight line, bypassing meandering routes.

However , don't act immedialely . The difference was only very small and there are several big catches. Flying cars don't really exist yet — they are only at the prototype （蓝本）stage. The prototypes rely on electric power and act as a taxi, but another issue is that the study is a bit of an apples-for-oranges comparison.

The researchers assume that each electric car carries an average of 1.54 passengers while the passengers and drivers of the flying car are three and one. The reason for this assumption is that the flying car will provide a shared taxi service like UberPool, but in fact electric cars can do the same. In addition t due to the need for energy during take-off, the emissions from the flight below 35 km will be more than those of electric vehicles.

Keoleian and his team conclude flying cars could have a minor role in sustainable transport. But even if they do prove to be green, they have a lot of other hurdles to cross first.

ART & TECHNOLOGY

Think “art”. What comes to your mind? Is it Greek or Roman sculptures in the Louvre, or Chinese paintings in the Palace Museum? Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a dancing pattern of lights?

The artworks by American artist Janet Echelman look like colourful floating clouds when they are lit up at night. Visitors to one of her artworks in Vancouver could not only enjoy looking at it, they could also interact with it—literally. They did this by using their phones to change its colours and patterns. Exhibits such as these are certainly new and exciting, but are they really art?

Whatever your opinion, people have been expressing their thoughs and ideas through art for thousands of years. To do this，they have used a variety of tools and technologies. Yet Michelangelo and others have been labelled as “artists” rather than “technicians”. This means that art and technology have always been seen as two very separate things.

Today, however, technological advances have led to a combination of art and technology. As a result, the art world is changing greatly. Now art is more accessible to us than ever before. Take for example one of China’s most famous paintings from the Song Dynasty, Along the River During the Qingming Festival. As this artwork is rarely on display, people have sometimes queued up to six hours for a chance to see it. Once in front of the painting, they only have limited time to spend taking in its five metres of scenes along the Bian River in Bianjing. Thanks to technology however, millions more people have been able to experience a digital version of this painting. Three­dimensional(3D) animation means that viewers can see the characters move around and interact with their surroundings. They can also watch as the different scenes change from daylight into nighttime.

The art-tech combination is also changing our concepts of “art” and the “artist”. Not only can we interact with art, but also take part in its creation. With new technological tools at our fingertips, more and more people are exploring their creative sides. The result has been exciting new art forms, such as digital paintings and videos.

However, the increase in the amount and variety of art produced has also raised questions^⑰ over its overall quality.Can a video of someone slicing a tomato played in slow motion really be called “art”?

Similarly, such developments are making the line between art and technology less distinct. Can someone unfamiliar with traditional artists’ tools really call themselves an “artist”? And is the artist the creator of the art itself, or the maker of the technology behind it? A recent project used technology and data in the same way that Rembrandt used his paints and brushes. The end result, printed in 3D, was a new “Rembrandt painting” created 347 years after the artist’s death. These advances are perhaps bringing us closer to a time when computers rather than humans create art.

Where technology will take art next is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure—with so many artists exploring new possibilities, we can definitely expect the unexpected.