Social behaviours in dog-owner interactions can serve as a model of companion robot behaviour

It is essential for social robots to fit in the human society. In order to facilitate this process we propose to use the family dog’s social behaviour shown towards humans as an inspiration. In this study we explored dogs’ low level social monitoring in dog-human interactions and extracted individually consistent and context dependent behaviours in simple everyday social scenarios. We found that proximity seeking and tail wagging were most individually distinctive in dogs, while activity, orientation towards the owner, and exploration were dependent on the context and/or the activity of the owner. The functional analogues of these dog behaviours can be implemented in social robots of different embodiments in order to make them acceptable and more believable for humans

Samantha’s Dilemma: A Look into a Life with AI

In this paper, I propose a thought experiment, “Samantha’s Dilemma,” which captures the complexity of determining whether moral considerations can be attributed to artificial intelligence (AI). Deciding whether or not we attribute autonomous freedom to artificial beings lays the foundation, not only for our relationships with AI, but with any ‘intelligent’ species we encounter in the future. By analyzing several core arguments regarding the treatment of artificial beings, I will show that abandoning our predominant self-serving tendencies and choosing not to limit the potentiality of autonomous AI is not only the safest course of action, but also the morally correct one

On the utilisation of social animals as a model for social robotics

Social robotics is becoming a driving field in building artificial agents. The possibility to construct agents that can engage in meaningful social interaction with humans presents new challenges for the engineers. In general social robotics has been inspired dominantly by human psychology and aimed for building human-like robots. Only a small subcategory of companion robots (also referred to as robotic pets) was build to mimic animals. In the opinion essay we argue that all social robots should be seen as companions and more conceptual emphasis should be put on the inter-specific interaction between humans and social robots. This view is underlined by the means of an ethological analysis, and critical evaluation of present day companion robots. We suggest that human-animal interaction provides a rich source of knowledge for designing social robots that are able to interact with humans under a wide range of conditions

A First Step toward the Automatic Understanding of Social Touch for Naturalistic Human–Robot Interaction

Social robots should be able to automatically understand and respond to human touch. The meaning of touch does not only depend on the form of touch but also on the context in which the touch takes place. To gain more insight into the factors that are relevant to interpret the meaning of touch within a social context we elicited touch behaviors by letting participants interact with a robot pet companion in the context of different affective scenarios. In a contextualized lab setting, participants (n = 31) acted as if they were coming home in different emotional states (i.e., stressed, depressed, relaxed, and excited) without being given specific instructions on the kinds of behaviors that they should display. Based on video footage of the interactions and interviews we explored the use of touch behaviors, the expressed social messages, and the expected robot pet responses. Results show that emotional state influenced the social messages that were communicated to the robot pet as well as the expected responses. Furthermore, it was found that multimodal cues were used to communicate with the robot pet, that is, participants often talked to the robot pet while touching it and making eye contact. Additionally, the findings of this study indicate that the categorization of touch behaviors into discrete touch gesture categories based on dictionary definitions is not a suitable approach to capture the complex nature of touch behaviors in less controlled settings. These findings can inform the design of a behavioral model for robot pet companions and future directions to interpret touch behaviors in less controlled settings are discussed

또 다른 인간의 동반자: 동물의 권리를 로봇에게도?

학위논문 (석사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 국제대학원 국제학과(국제협력전공), 2020. 8. Jiyeoun Song.This paper considers the academic debate on and different responses to the emergence of lifelike social robots as others from humans in society. The philosophical issues surrounding legal rights that are raised by this regulatory issue will be analyzed by deploying a 2x2 matrix based on two modalities: can and should social robots have rights? On these two questions, this thesis examines how the legal treatment of animals, the original others, has evolved historically, and how the animal-robot analogy, which encourages an understanding of social robots as analogues of animals, has risen to prominence as a line of argument to push for the extension of legal rights to protect social robots akin to animals. Using the same modalities, other positions on robot rights will be examined to suggest that the debate on robot rights shows parallels to the debate on animal rights and can be modeled along similar lines. In doing so, this thesis provides an overview of the current rights debate and suggests that the robot rights debate may follow a similar trajectory to the animal rights debate in the future.I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 II.1. ANALYSIS 9 II.1.1. On Social Robots 9 II.1.2. On Anthropomorphism 12 II.1.3. On the Comparison between Animal and Robot Rights 14 II.2. LIMITATIONS 16 III. METHODOLOGY 18 IV. DEFINING SOCIAL ROBOTS: WHY DO WE TALK ABOUT THEM? 22 IV.1. BACKGROUND 22 IV.2. EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL ROBOTS 25 IV.3. ANTHROPOMORPHISM AS INTENTIONAL DESIGN CHOICE 27 V. THE ANIMAL RIGHTS DEBATE 34 V.1. BACKGROUND 34 V.2. DEBATE ANALYSIS: FROM INDIFFERENCE TO ADVOCACY 35 V.3. CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE 44 VI. THE ROBOT RIGHTS DEBATE 49 VI.1. BACKGROUND 49 VI.2. DEBATE ANALYSIS: FROM TOOLS TO SOCIAL ENTITIES 51 VI.2.1. Q1: Since social robots cannot have rights, they should not have rights. 52 VI.2.2. Q2: Even though social robots cannot have rights, they should have rights. 55 VI.2.3. Q3: Even though social robots can have rights, they should not have rights. 59 VI.2.4. Q4: Since social robots can have rights, they should have rights. 62 VI.2.5. The Dynamics of The Discourse 64 VI.3. THE ANIMAL-ROBOT ANALOGY 73 VI.4. CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE 86 VII. CONCLUSION 89 VIII. REFERENCES 92Maste