Matthew Peter Aylett
ABSTRACT
Markus and Kitayama suggests Western centric culture has a bias to the independent rather than the interdependence self. We argue that this has resulted in a bias for social robots to be assistants, companions, wing-men and one-to-one carers. Thus, the social in most commercial social robots is a simulated social interaction with a single user, an echo chamber of unnecessary interaction that inevitability creates systems that obstruct social interaction rather than encourage it. The resulting robot flunkies, yes-men and pretend friends have little long term utility. In contrast, we argue that rather it is as mediators, facilitators and working within human communities and groups that offers the real opportunity for social robots.
Footnotes
1 A polite way to say almost non-existent
Footnote2 This term is often a commercial term for giving up but desperately still trying to monetize anything left for the effort.
Footnote3 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazons-alexa-unit-faces-layoffs-113600639.html
Footnote4 Ironic now with the news of Amazon’s Alexa woes.
Footnote5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0h20jRA5M0
Footnote- Footnote
7 if it ever becomes available
Footnote8 I’m not sure if the copy writers really thought through the meaning of this, at least I hope not
Footnote9 http://www.bluefrogrobotics.com/robot/
Footnote10 We can almost guarantee that smart speaker manufacturers are working very hard to recognize users so they can build individual profiles and create a one-to-one user experience if the device is in a shared space.
Footnote11 https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/media/2206/file
Footnote
- Matthew P Aylett, Benjamin R Cowan, and Leigh Clark. 2019. Siri, Echo and performance: You have to suffer darling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Chris Birmingham, Zijian Hu, Kartik Mahajan, Eli Reber, and Maja J Matarić. 2020. Can I trust you? A user study of robot mediation of a support group. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 8019–8026.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vicky Charisi, Luis Merino, Marina Escobar, Fernando Caballero, Randy Gomez, and Emilia Gómez. 2021. The Effects of Robot Cognitive Reliability and Social Positioning on Child-Robot Team Dynamics. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 9439–9445.Google Scholar
- Herbert H Clark and Kerstin Fischer. 2022. Social robots as depictions of social agents. Behavioral and Brain Sciences(2022), 1–33.Google Scholar
- Randy Gomez, Deborah Szapiro, Kerl Galindo, and Keisuke Nakamura. 2018. Haru: Hardware Design of an Experimental Tabletop Robot Assistant. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2018, Chicago, IL, USA, March 05-08, 2018, Takayuki Kanda, Selma Sabanovic, Guy Hoffman, and Adriana Tapus (Eds.). ACM, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171288Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guy Hoffman, Jodi Forlizzi, Shahar Ayal, Aaron Steinfeld, John Antanitis, Guy Hochman, Eric Hochendoner, and Justin Finkenaur. 2015. Robot presence and human honesty: Experimental evidence. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 181–188.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lillian Hung, Cindy Liu, Evan Woldum, Andy Au-Yeung, Annette Berndt, Christine Wallsworth, Neil Horne, Mario Gregorio, Jim Mann, and Habib Chaudhury. 2019. The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC geriatrics 19, 1 (2019), 1–10.Google Scholar
- Valerie K Jones. 2019. Experiencing Voice-Activated Artificial Intelligence Assistants in the Home: A Phenomenological Approach. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
- Swapna Joshi and Selma Šabanović. 2019. Robots for inter-generational interactions: implications for nonfamilial community settings. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 478–486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter H Kahn, Nathan G Freier, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Jolina H Ruckert, Rachel L Severson, and Shaun K Kane. 2008. Design patterns for sociality in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 97–104.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shinobu Kitayama and T Imada. 2010. Implicit independence and interdependence. The mind in context (2010), 174–200.Google Scholar
- Hazel R Markus and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological review 98, 2 (1991), 224.Google Scholar
- Jaana Parviainen and Jari Pirhonen. 2017. Vulnerable bodies in human–robot interactions: Embodiment as ethical issue in robot care for the elderly. (2017).Google Scholar
- John Durham Peters. 2012. Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. University of chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Amit Pinchevski. 2005. By way of interruption: Levinas and the ethics of communication. Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
- Danielle Rifinski, Hadas Erel, Adi Feiner, Guy Hoffman, and Oren Zuckerman. 2021. Human-human-robot interaction: robotic object’s responsive gestures improve interpersonal evaluation in human interaction. Human–Computer Interaction 36, 4 (2021), 333–359.Google Scholar
- Eleanor Sandry. 2015. Robots and communication. Springer.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and information technology 14, 1 (2012), 27–40.Google Scholar
- Robert Sparrow and Linda Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16, 2 (2006), 141–161.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aimee van Wynsberghe. 2022. Social robots and the risks to reciprocity. AI & SOCIETY 37, 2 (2022), 479–485.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Unsocial Robots: How Western Culture Dooms Consumer Social Robots to a Society of One
Recommendations
Do social robots walk or roll?
ICSR'10: Proceedings of the Second international conference on Social roboticsThere is a growing trend of social robots to move into the human environment. This research is set up to find the trends within social robotic designs. A sample of social robotic designs is drawn to investigate on whether there are more legged social ...
Social robots and the risks to reciprocity
AbstractA growing body of research can be found in which roboticists are designing for reciprocity as a key construct for successful human–robot interaction (HRI). Given the centrality of reciprocity as a component for our moral lives (for moral ...
Robots are Always Social: Robotic Movements are Automatically Interpreted as Social Cues
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPhysical movement is a dominant element in robot behavior. We evaluate if robotic movements are automatically interpreted as social cues, even if the robot has no social role. 24 participants performed the Implicit Associations Test, classifying robotic ...
Comments