Three Responses to Anthropomorphism in Social Robotics

Question 1

Anthropomorphism

Answer 1

the attribution of human characteristics or behaviours to a god, animal, or object (e.g., robot)

Question 2

Hermeneutics

Answer 2

the branch of knowledge that deals with how we interpret things

Question 3

Social Brain Hypothesis

Answer 3

the human brain’s large size and complexity have evolved to meet the cognitive demands of navigating intricate social relationships and hierarchies

Question 4

Concerns raised by anthropomorphising robots

Answer 4

emotional relationships developing between people and robots

feelings of uncanniness ariassing when robots looks humans and act mostly humants but just not entirely

Question 5

Animism

Answer 5

belief system that attributes spiritual or conscious qualities to natural elements, such as animals, plants, and inanimate objects, regarding them as imbued with souls or spirits

Question 6

Paper’s Question

Answer 6

How can one respond to the issue of anthropomorphism from a philosophy of technology point of view?

Question 7

Two Philosophical Views on Anthromorphising Robots

Answer 7

Naive Instrumentalism and Uncritical Posthumanism

Question 8

Naive Instrumentalism

Answer 8

insists that machines are mere instruments to human purposes

thus, anthropomorphising robots is a psychological bias

this view clearly divides humans and non-humans, assuming a version of metaphisical and epistemological realism (objects exist independently of our concepts and perceptions, and we can describe them in an objective way)

Question 9

Views arising from Naive Instrumentalism

Answer 9

Not only the robot itself should be seen as a tool, but also its anthropomorphisation as a tool to improve HRI.

Regardless of the robot’s functioning and effectiveness, it is wrong to anthropomorphise machines since they are mere tools.

Question 10

Uncritical Posthumanism

Answer 10

the view of embracing social robots as quasi-persons and “others”

criticises traditional humanist worldviews that put humans at the centre of world and instead expands the circle of ontological and moral concern to non-humans

Social robots are welcomed as part of a posthumanist ecology or network of humans and non-humans

dualisms and binaries such as the humans-technology binary

involves non-realism (believing that we cannot have an objective view of reality and that scientific beliefs are a social construction)

Question 11

Concept of “Other” by Emmanuel Levinas

Answer 11

Viewing robots as the “Other,” as defined by Emmanuel Levinas, compels us to respond ethically to their distinct existence and autonomy, emphasizing the importance of respectful and responsible interactions in the realm of artificial intelligence and robotics

Question 12

Views arising from Uncritical Posthumanism

Answer 12

Social robotics is not problematic and should even be embraced since we are invitied to include non-huamans in our social spheres.

Anthropomorphism is problematic since it does not respect the difference or otherness of the robot (we should not project our humanness on the robot)

Question 13

Problems with Naive Instrumentalism:

Answer 13

fails to fully understand that robots are not mere tools but have unintended consequences and are bound up with humans through experience, language, social relations, narratives and so on

does not recognise how robots are intrinsically related to humans in various ways

Question 14

Problems with Uncritical Posthumanism:

Answer 14

forgets that robots are inherently humans since they are created, interpreted and given meaning by humans

does not recognise how robots are intrinsically related to humans in various ways

Question 15

The Third View - Critical, Relational and Hermeneutic

Answer 15

Not tools not others:
Robots are designed and made by human beings and are thus human, not tools nor totally “others”. They can also shape us and our goals.

Linguistic and Social Construction of Robots:
Robots are not defined purely in some objective, scientific way, but their definition rather depends on human subjectivity, meaning-making, narratives, language, metaphors, etc. Humans not only build robots but also construct them using language and social relations.

Relationality and Meaning Making:
Robots are embedded in larger sociotechnical systems, and intertwined with the social pracices and systems of meaning of humans. Robots also contribute to the making of meaning, as they also shape how we make sense of the work.

Lack of Hermenutic Control:
Robots can also be argued to not be mere machines since interactions with them can often be unpredictable/unintended, even to their makers. However, these emergent meanings can also not be conceptualised as constituting total otherness, since the emergence of meaning is again entirely dependent on human meaning making and experiences.

Power:
Social robots in use and interaction are not just tools or purely technical activities but have social and political meanings and effects, which includes an aspect of power.

Instruments in relation:
Robots are instruments, but they are instruments-in-relation: they are always connected to humans and the social-cultural fields in which they operate.

Question 16

Re-Defined Goals of Social Robotics

Answer 16

Social robotics should be understood as an interdisciplinary field that is not only concerned with the making of assemblages of material artefacts and software called robots or with the creation of artificial others, but also always with the making of human, social, cultural, and political meanings

Question 17

Responsibility for Social Robots Meaning Making

Answer 17

responsibility for making sure that the robot and human-robot interaction achieves its goals but also for doing this in a way that exercises responsibility to other people

falls on roboticists, educators and users-citizens

robotics researchers and designers should at least try to predict the larger impacts of their robots

Question 18

Conclusion

Answer 18

more anthropomorphising of social robots is needed, but not the one due to design features and the interactions they enable;

rather, we need more anthropomorphising in the sense of more recognition of the link between robots and their hermeneutic environment;

we need a deeper understanding of the deep social and semantic relationality of robots, and the inherent humanness of robots and technology