Social Robotics in the Perspective of (Non)Anthropocentrism
Łukasz SAROWSKI
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1228-9705
Małgorzata GRUCHOŁA
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2367-0416
Abstract
We currently witness a process of domesticating artificial intelligence in the form of, among others, the so-called humanoid companion robots; the process in question may lead to a kind of “socialization” of such robots. The purpose of the article was—through an analysis of the specialist literature and products of social robotics—to show that such domesticating makes us aware of the necessity to develop, considering anthropocentric principles, criteria and rules to regulate the functioning of robots in social life. Four dimensions of anthropocentrism (cognitive, ontological, methodological, and axiological) were analyzed in the context of the need to clarify ethical, social, and legal rules for the use of humanoid robots in society. The author applied analytical-descriptive and synthetic methods. The conclusions make it possible to partly confirm the research hypothesis, i.e., the claim that the process of domesticating AI technology in the form of humanoid robots implies the need for their “socialization” in all four dimensions of anthropocentrism. The literature analysis shows that the development of social robotics is changing the perception and ways of analysis of social phenomena in which robotic technologies play an increasingly important role. Robots perform social functions and tasks which have so far been the domain of humans. Although from an ontological perspective, the formal criteria of subjectivity for robots have not been developed and robots have not been granted legal subjectivity, the intensive development of robotic technologies, by changing the position of robots in society, favours informal and discretionary granting them subjectivity. It seems justifiable to say that granting legal subjectivity to humanoid robots will generate changes in all areas of anthropocentrism.
Keywords:
social robotics, artificial intelligence technology, criteria of anthropocentrismReferences
Asimov, Isaac. Ja-robot. Translated by Zbigniew A. Królicki. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Rebis, 2015.
Beer, Randall D., et al. “Biologically Inspired Approaches to Robotics”. Communications of the ACM 40, no. 3 (1997): 30–38.
Bińczyk, Ewa. Epoka człowieka. Retoryka i marazm antropogenu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWN, 2018.
Campa, Ricardo. “Kodeksy etyczne robotów: zagadnienie kontroli sprawowanej przez człowieka.” Pomiary Automatyka Robotyka, no. 3 (2011): 86–90.
Cathcart, Thomas. Dylemat wagonika. Translated by Katarzyna Bażyńska-Chojnacka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWN, 2014.
Collins, Randall. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Czarnocka, Małgorzata. Podmiot poznania a nauka. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2012.
Darling, Kate. Extending Legal Protection to Social Robots: The Effects of Anthropomorphism, Empathy, and Violent Behavior Towards Robotic Object, We Robot Conference. Coral Gables: University of Miami, 2012.
Delcomyn, Fred. “Biologically Inspired Robots.” In Bioinspiration and Robotics Walking and Climbing Robots. Edited by Maki K. Habib. Vienna: I-Tech, 2007.
Delvaux, Mady. “Draft Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics”. In Committee on Legal Affairs 2016, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-582443_EN.pdf?redirect.
Devlin, Kate. Seksroboty. O pożądaniu, nauce i sztucznej inteligencji. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie, 2018.
Dick, Philip K. Blade Runner. Czy androidy śnią o elektrycznych owcach? Translated by Sławomir Kędzierski. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Rebis, 2016.
Dörr, Konstantin Nicholas. “Mapping the Field of Algorithmic Journalism.” Digital Journalism 4(2016) no. 6: 700–22.
Ficoń, Krzysztof. Sztuczna inteligencja nie tylko dla humanistów. Warszawa: Bel Studio, 2013.
Gruchoła, Małgorzata. “Technologia sztucznej inteligencji w dziennikarstwie a perspektywa deantropocentryzmu dziennikarza.” Roczniki Nauk Społecznych 14, no. 2(50) (2022): 59–82.
Guang-Zhong, Yang, Paolo Dario, and Danica Kragic. “Social Robotics – Trust, Learning and Social Interaction.” Science Robotics 13, no. 21 (2018) s. 1-2.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/scirobotics.aau8839.
Hughes, James. Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Society Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
Johnson, Deborah E., and Merel E. Noorman. “Responsibility Practices in Robotic Warfare.” Military Review, May-June 2014, s. 12-21.
Kamiński, Stanisław, and Bogdan Czupryn. “Autonomia.” In Powszechna encyklopedia filozofii. Vol. 1. Edited by Andrzej Maryniarczyk. Lublin: Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu, 2000.
Kanda, Takayuki, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. Human-Robot Interaction in Social Robotics. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, 2013.
Kisielewicz, Andrzej. Sztuczna inteligencja i logika. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2017.
Klichowski, Michał. Narodziny cyborgizacji. Nowa eugenika, transhumanizm i zmierzch edukacji. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2014.
Kopeć, Rafał. “Autonomia systemów bojowych.” Przegląd Geopolityczny, no. 17 (2016): 133–47.
Krzysztofek, Kazimierz. “Sprawczość ludzka, transludzka i postludzka w społeczeństwie nasyconym technologicznie”. In Moc sprawcza ludzi i organizacji. Edited by Lech Wojciech Zacher. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext, 2016.
Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machine. New York: Books Penguin, 1991.
Lambert, Paul. “Computer Generated Works and Copyright: Selfies, Traps, Robots, AI and Machine Learning.” European Intellectual Property Review, no. 39 (2017): 12–20.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Lee, Kwan, Min, Namkee Park, and Hayeon Song. “Can a Robot be Perceived as a Developing Creature: Effect of a Robot’s Long-Term Cognitive Developments on its Social Presence and People’s Social Responses Toward it.” Human Communication Research, no. 31(2005): 538–63.
Lem, Stanisław. Bajki robotów. Warszawa: Biblioteka Gazety Wyborczej, 2008.
Loh, Janina. “Responsibility and Robot Ethics: A Critical Overview.” Philosophies 4, no. 58 (2019): 1–20.
Marx, Johannes, and Christine Tiefensee. “Of Animals, Robots and Men.” Historical Social Research 40, no. 4 (2015): 70–91.
Menzel, Peter, Faith D’Aluisio. Robo Sapiens: Evolution of a New Species. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
Michalski, Ryszard. “O naturze uczenia się – problemy i kierunki badawcze.” Informatyka, no. 2 (1988): 4–7.
Miernicki, Martin, and Irene Ng [Ying Huang]. “Artificial Intelligence and Moral Rights.” AI & Society, no. 36 (2020): 319–29.
Mileszyk, Natalia. Copyright trolling – skala zjawiska i propozycje rozwiązań. Centrum Cyfrowe. https://centrumcyfrowe.pl/czytelnia/copyright-trolling-skala-zjawiska-i-propozycje-rozwiazan/.
Misselhorn Catrin, Robots as moral agents. w: Ethics in Science and Societ: German and Japanes Views, red. F. Rovekamp, F. Bosse, Iudicium Verlag, Monachium 2013.
Mori, Masahiro. “The Uncanny Valley.” Energy 7, no. 4 (1970): 33–5.
Parasuraman, Raja, Thomas Sheridan, and Christopher Wickens. “A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 36, no. 3 (2000): 286–97.
Pawińska, Maria. “Dopuszczalność gwałtu na humanoidalnym robocie.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, no. 86 (2019): 9–18.
Przegalińska, Aleksandra. Istoty wirtualne. Jak fenomenologia zmieniała sztuczną inteligencję. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Universitas, 2016.
Sarowski, Łukasz. Robot humanoidalny jako podmiot czy przedmiot interakcji społecznej? XI Polski Zjazdu Filozoficzny. Lublin. 9-14.09.2019 r.
Schmidt, Colin, and Felicitas Kraemer. “Robots, Dennet and the Autonomous: a Terminological Investigation.” Minds and Machines 16, no. 1 (2006): 73–80.
Schmidt, Colin, and Felicitas Kraemer. “Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperations, Technical Report on Contract N00014-77-0256.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23882567_Human_and_Computer_Control_of_Undersea_Teleoperators.
Sheridan, Thomas B., and W. L. Verplank. Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperations, Technical Report on Contract N00014-77-0256, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23882567_Human_and_Computer_Control_of_Undersea_Teleoperators.
Søraa, Roger. “Mechanical Genders: How do Humans Gender Robots.” Gender, Technology and Development 21, no. 1–2 (2017): 99–115.
Steels, Luc. Social Learning and Verbal Communication with Humanoid Robots, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228800852_Social_learning_and_verbal_communication_with_humanoid_robots.
Sullins, John. “When is a Robot a Moral Agent?” International Review of Information Ethics 6, no. 12 (2006): 23–30.
Szpunar, Magdalena. Kultura algorytmów. Kraków: Instytut Dziennikarstwa, Mediów i Komunikacji Społecznej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2019.
Szulczewski, Grzegorz. “Sztuczna inteligencja a inteligencja moralna. Zagadnienia wstępne cybernetyki.” Annales. Ethics in Economic Life 22, no. 3 (2019): 19–31.
Thurman, Neil. “Computational Journalism.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Edited by KarinWahl-Jorgensen, and Thomas Hanitzsch. New York: Routledge, 2019.
Veruggio, Gianmarco. “The Birth of Roboethics.” In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2005): Workshop on Robo-Ethics, Barcelona, April 18, 2005. https://philpapers.org/rec/VERTBO-3.
Wierzchoń, Michał, and Marta Łukowska. “Ucieleśnione poznanie.” In Przewodnik po kognitywistyce. Edited by Józef Bremer. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM, 2016.
Ziemke, Tom. “Czym jest to, co zwiemy ucieleśnieniem?” Avant 6, no. 3 (2015): 161–74.
John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2367-0416
