Abstract
AbstractSocial robotics aims at designing robots capable of joint interaction with humans. On a conceptual level, sufficient mutual understanding is usually said to be a necessary condition for joint interaction. Against this background, the following questions remain open: in which sense is it legitimate to speak of human–robot joint interaction? What exactly does it mean to speak of humans and robots sufficiently understanding each other to account for human–robot joint interaction? Is such joint interaction effectively possible by reference, e.g., to the mere ascription or simulation of understanding? To answer these questions, we first discuss technical approaches which aim at the implementation of certain aspects of human–human communication and interaction in social robots in order to make robots accessible and understandable to humans and, hence, human–robot joint interaction possible. Second, we examine the human tendency to anthropomorphize in this context, with a view to human understanding of and joint interaction with social robots. Third, we analyze the most prominent concepts of mutual understanding and their implications for human–robot joint interaction. We conclude that it is—at least for the time being—not legitimate to speak of human–robot joint interaction, which has relevant implications both morally and ethically.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
FernUniversität in Hagen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Reference113 articles.
1. Airenti, G. (2015). The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: From relatedness to empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0263-x
2. Allen, C., & Wallach, W. (2012). Moral machines: Contradiction in terms or abdication of human responsibility. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 55–68). MIT Press.
3. Ames, D. R. (2004). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340
4. Asimov, I. (1990). Robot visions. ROC.
5. Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16(10), 814–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01619.x
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献