Email Address. Sign In. Access provided by: anon Sign Out. A communal perspective on shared robots as social catalysts Abstract: Recent years have seen robust advancements in robotic platforms for multiple users, while HRI research is increasingly examining small group interactions. However, there has been little consideration of appropriate methodologies for design or development of human-robot interactions to foster and enhance context-specific shared goals, interactions, and experiences within larger communities.
This paper presents a preliminary study using a community-centered approach to collective perceptions about shared social robots in a retirement village. It reveals novel aspects regarding people's sense of community, community roles and purposes of robots. Findings indicate need of a framework for community robotics and further studies using a community perspective to bring rich insight into goal oriented and context specific multi-user experiences and interactions in HRI.
- Education in the Age of Biocapitalism: Optimizing Educational Life for a Flat World?
- Dynamic Copula Methods in Finance (The Wiley Finance Series)?
- Please review our terms of service to complete your newsletter subscription.;
- Recommended for you!
- CHI Pelikan: Interactional challenges with social robots using multimodal CA?
- Workshop on Developmental Social Robotics (DevSoR), IROS - acbitamding.cf;
Morality is culturally specific, continually evolving, and eternally debated. If robots are to live by an ethical code, where will it come from? What will it consist of? Who decides? A Utilitarian Perspective. The main obstacle to full-scale implementation of service robots is whether or not they harm our society. In terms of a utilitarian standpoint, the essential ethical question is whether service robots do more good than harm to the Japanese society.
Will robots create more jobs than they will destroy? Are robots a promising solution for elderly care , thereby essential to the Japanese aging population? Is the huge market ahead for service robotics compensating for the potential dangers involved? In Japan, they are no moral dilemma regarding automation due to a striking deficiency in the workforce.
But what about other parts of the world, where people desperately need jobs? Do all people have equal needs for privacy? Or do some, who are more vulnerable in some way, need privacy more than others?
Should legislators pass new laws to protect privacy, given the new technologies and products that now collect information about us? Should individuals bear the responsibility of protecting their own privacy? Do most people understand the way in which their information is accessed, collected, or otherwise used online?
Japan and the World: A Global Perspective. However, the same does not hold true for other parts of the world. The growth of service robot technology will inevitably lead to a progressive adoption of service robots in entire world. This will entail ethical concerns for the rest of the world.
- Social robot.
- Social Robots from a Human Perspective | Jane Vincent | Springer.
- Social Robots from a Human Perspective;
- Introducing Java EE 7: A Look at What’s New.
- Conceptual Analysis ARTICLE.
In fact, most countries have expanding workforces and will not be able to easily switch to service robots. Self-driving cars can potentially eliminate virtually all driving errors and ease congestion. There are also disadvantages: self-driving cars will result in a loss of more than 5 million jobs in the US. They are also expensive to build. However, from a utilitarian perspective, the massive economic and environmental savings coupled with the number of lives saved would do more good than harm to our society.
They also raise significant ethical concerns: To what extent should self-driving cars follow the law?
Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social
Who is accountable for behavioral driving mistakes? The trolley problem applied to self-driving cars is a choice between utilitarianism and deontology. Imagine an autonomous car that has two options : Keep going and crash into the human-driven car, inadvertently killing the family of five.
Turn right and crash into another car, killing the one person sitting inside. The New Robot Strategy aims at the gradual automation of just about everything: from agricultural equipment to automobiles, and disaster-relief services to robots in the food, cosmetics, and even pharmaceuticals industries. Another focus of the initiative is expanding the role of service robots, with intermediate goals of seeing 30 percent penetration by , and an ultimate target of 70 percent of such machines employed in the sector. Japan is planning to set up a structure triggering innovation through promotion of public-private partnership, creation of more occasions for matching users and manufacturers, as well as pressing ahead with normalization and standardization under the perspectives of human resource development.
Last month, the government launched a "robot revolution realization council" to craft a five-year blueprint to strengthen the industry. The current policy plan entails diminished regulatory reforms so that new robotic companies have an easier time with regulators. Absence of Specific Regulation: Identification, Precautionary Risk Control There exists no standardized regulation to prevent dangers associated with networked, autonomous robots.
Social Robots. A Workshop on the Past, the Present and the Future of Digital Companions
The absence of regulation in specific cases makes it difficult for the relevant stakeholders to understand potential legal risks in activities involving service robots. When accidents happen there is currently no method to identify the owner and manufacturer of the involved robots. This lack of an identification method makes it more challenging to prevent similar mistakes in the future, or hold involved parties accountable for accidents. Service robots are not legally required to have precautionary risk mechanisms that could prevent dangerous situations.
All service robots will be required to have a clearly visible and easily accessible kill switch. The kill switch will immediately shut off the robot. The switch is intended to allow humans to stop the robot in the case something goes wrong. It serves as a protective measure against faulty hardware and software, and also dangerous situations with which the robot may be unfamiliar.
Identification Chip. The identification chips can be used in case of an accident to identify the owner and the manufacturer, so that they can be held accountable for their mistakes. In addition, the manufacturers can learn from their mistakes, so that they can take actions to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
It will be illegal to remove these identification chips from a robot. These chips will be standardized products, produced either by the government or by a government-sponsored organization. Human Obedience. Robots must obey all orders of their human owners. For example, if a human takes control in a self driving car, then the car should obey the human owner and stop making autonomous decisions as long as this does not result into the direct death or injury of humans.
In the case that a human takes over and something negative happens because of the human's decision, liability falls upon the human for making decisions that the robot followed. Keep Current Policy? Ban Service Robots? Maintaining the current policy is insufficient. Counterarguments: The lack of regulatory standards raises significant ethical and social considerations, particularly surrounding safety and human lives, as discussed in our current policy section. Additionally, the absence of service robot specific laws makes it difficult for the relevant stakeholders to understand potential legal risks of activities involving service robots.
The fact that service robots often involve state-of-the-art technologies imposes a burden on robot makers in interpreting legal norms and complying with them. This raises further questions as to whether the use of autonomous robots in public areas is allowed, and what conditions need to be met for their actual use.
Those who wish to develop and use robots need to identify and solve the legal issues faced by them on a case-by-case basis.
This significantly raises the barrier to entry for robot manufacturers, and as a result impedes innovation. Banning Service Robots is Not the Solution. Counterarguments: Banning service robots is a form of overregulation, which is not a good idea: it impedes innovation. Thus, robots do not replace people take jobs. They fill unfilled jobs.
Robots save time and money by being able to produce a greater magnitude of products of higher quality in shorter periods of time increased ROI. Consequent to its shrinkage in workforce, Japan has to rely on productivity as its primary catalyst for growth. Robots save people from performing dangerous tasks. Overall, these alternatives are worse than our proposed policy.