Abstract
AbstractSocial robotics does not create tools but social ‘others’ that act in the physical and symbolic space of human social interactions. In order to guide the profound disruptive potential of this technology, social robotics must be repositioned—we must reconceive it as an emerging interdisciplinary area where expertise on social reality, as physical, practical, and symbolic space, is constitutively included. I present here the guiding principles for such a repositioning, “Integrative Social Robotics,” and argue that the path to culturally sustainable (value-preserving) or positive (value-enhancing) applications of social robotics goes via a redirection of the humanities and social sciences. Rather than creating new educations by disemboweling, the humanities and social sciences, students need to acquire full disciplinary competence in these disciplines, as well as the new skill to direct these qualifications toward membership in multidisciplinary developer teams.
Funder
Verein zur Förderung des digitalen Humanismus
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference14 articles.
1. Calvo, R.A., Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing: technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press.
2. Druckman, D., Adrian, L., Damholdt, M.F., Filzmoser, M., Koszegi, S.T., Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C. (2020). Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans. Group Decis. Negot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09716-9
3. Fischer, K. (2019). Why Collaborative Robots Must Be Social (and even Emotional) Actors. Techné Res. Philos. Technol. 23, 270–289.
4. Friedman, B., Kahn, P., Borning, A. (2002). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington technical report 02–12.
5. IEEE, n.d. IEEE SA – The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems [WWW Document]. URL https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html (accessed 10.28.20).