Categorizing Social Robots with Respect to Dimensions Relevant to Ethical, Social and Legal Implications

Abstract The aim of this paper is to suggest a framework for categorizing social robots with respect to four dimensions relevant to an ethical, legal and social evaluation. We argue that by categorizing them thusly, we can circumvent problematic evaluations of social robots that are often based on overly broad and abstract considerations. Instead of questioning, for example, whether social robots are ethically good or bad in general, we instead propose that different configurations of (and combinations thereof) the suggested dimensions entail different paradigmatic challenges with respect to ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). We therefore encourage practitioners to consider these paradigmatic challenges when designing social robots to find creative design solutions.

[1]  Gesa Lindemann,et al.  Social interaction with robots: three questions , 2016, AI & SOCIETY.

[2]  Britta Wrede,et al.  Social facilitation with social robots? , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  M. Eriksson.  State-ofthe-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach , 2005 .

[4]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA).

[5]  V. McGeer.  The Regulative Dimension of Folk Psychology , 2007 .

[6]  L. Connelly.  Grounded theory. , 2013, Medsurg nursing : official journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses.

[7]  Thilo Weichert.  Praktische Anwendungsprobleme im Gesundheitsdatenschutz , 2019, Medizinrecht.

[8]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources , 2017, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  C. Katzenmeier.  Big Data, E-Health, M-Health, KI und Robotik in der Medizin , 2019, Medizinrecht.

[10]  Gunther Teubner.  Digitale Rechtssubjekte?: Haftung für das Handeln autonomer Softwareagenten , 2019 .

[11]  Carsten Dochow.  Telemedizin und Datenschutz , 2019, Medizinrecht.

[12]  Konstantin Aal,et al.  Creative and Cognitive Activities in Social Assistive Robots and Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Field Study with Pepper , 2019, ECSCW Exploratory Papers, Demos and Posters.

[13]  Catrin Misselhorn,et al.  Artificial systems with moral capacities? A research design and its implementation in a geriatric care system , 2020, Artif. Intell..

[14]  G. Nejat,et al.  Acceptance and Attitudes Toward a Human-like Socially Assistive Robot by Older Adults , 2014, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[15]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Practice-Based Computing: Empirically Grounded Conceptualizations Derived from Design Case Studies , 2015, Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World.

[16]  T. Smithers.  Autonomy in Robots and Other Agents , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  V. McGeer,et al.  Mind-making practices: the social infrastructure of self-knowing agency and responsibility , 2015 .

[18]  C. Allen,et al.  Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong , 2008 .

[19]  Erica Somerson.  Do you trust me , 2018 .

[20]  Johanna Seibt,et al.  Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for Robots and Humans , 2017 .

[21]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  CARESSES: The World's First Culturally Sensitive Robots for Elderly Care , 2019, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[22]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  On the Morality of Artificial Agents , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[23]  Susan Leigh Anderson,et al.  Robot be good. , 2010, Scientific American.

[24]  D Feil-Seifer,et al.  Socially Assistive Robotics , 2011, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[25]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Designing sociable robots , 2002 .

[26]  J. Parks.  Lifting the Burden of Women's Care Work: Should Robots Replace the “Human Touch”? , 2010, Hypatia.

[27]  L. Frank,et al.  It Loves Me, It Loves Me Not , 2019, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology.

[28]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Human-Robot Interaction , 2012 .

[29]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Autonomy and Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction: A Field Study , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[30]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Spontaneous behavior of robots for cooperation. Emotionally intelligent robot system , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[31]  Rodolphe Gelin,et al.  A Mass-Produced Sociable Humanoid Robot: Pepper: The First Machine of Its Kind , 2018, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[32]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  Big Data , 2014, Wirtschaftsinf..

[33]  Ann Gallagher,et al.  Robots in elder care , 2016, Nursing ethics.

[34]  HENRY LIEBERMAN,et al.  End-User Development: An Emerging Paradigm , 2006, End User Development.

[35]  Birgit Lugrin,et al.  Sozial interagierende Roboter in der Pflege , 2018 .

[36]  L. Damm,et al.  Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong , 2012 .

[37]  Felix Carros.  Roboter in der Pflege, ein Schreckgespenst? , 2019, Mensch & Computer Workshopband.

[38]  Thomas Petri.  Datenschutz im Gesundheitswesen , 2014, Datenschutz und Datensicherheit - DuD.