This article argues in defence of human–robot friendship. I begin by outlining the standard Aristotelian view of friendship, according to which there are certain necessary conditions which x must meet in order to ‘be a friend’. I explain how the current literature typically uses this Aristotelian view to object to human–robot friendships on theoretical and ethical grounds. Theoretically, a robot cannot be our friend because it cannot meet the requisite necessary conditions for friendship. Ethically, human–robot friendships are wrong because they (...) are deceptive, and could also make it more likely that we will favour ‘perfect’ robots, and disrespect, exploit, or exclude other human beings. To argue against the above position, I begin by outlining and assessing current attempts to reject the theoretical argument—that we cannot befriend robots. I argue that the current attempts are problematic, and do little to support the claim that we can be friends with robots now. I then use the standard Aristotelian view as a touchstone to develop a new degrees-of-friendship view. On my view, it is theoretically possible for humans to have some degree of friendship with social robots now. I explain how my view avoids ethical concerns about human–robot friendships being deceptive, and/or leading to the disrespect, exploitation, or exclusion of other human beings. (shrink)

This paper discuss the phenomenon of empathy in social robotics and is divided into three main parts. Initially, I analyse whether it is correct to use this concept to study and describe people’s reactions to robots. I present arguments in favour of the position that people actually do empathise with robots. I also consider what circumstances shape human empathy with these entities. I propose that two basic classes of such factors be distinguished: biological and socio-cognitive. In my opinion, one of (...) the most important among them is a sense of group membership with robots, as it modulates the empathic responses to representatives of our- and other- groups. The sense of group membership with robots may be co-shaped by socio-cognitive factors such as one’s experience, familiarity with the robot and its history, motivation, accepted ontology, stereotypes or language. Finally, I argue in favour of the formulation of a pragmatic and normative framework for manipulations in the level of empathy in human–robot interactions. (shrink)

Given that empathy allows people to form and maintain satisfying social relationships with other subjects, it is no surprise that this is one of the most studied phenomena in the area of human–robot interaction (HRI). But the fact that the term ‘empathy’ has strong social connotations raises a question: can it be applied to robots? Can we actually use social terms and explanations in relation to these inanimate machines? In this article, I analyse the range of uses of the term (...) empathy in the field of HRI studies and social robotics, and consider the substantial, functional and relational positions on this issue. I focus on the relational (cooperational) perspective presented by Luisa Damiano and Paul Dumouchel, who interpret emotions (together with empathy) as being the result of affective coordination. I also reflect on the criteria that should be used to determine when, in such relations, we are dealing with actual empathy. (shrink)

The problem of artificial intelligence and human being has always raised questions about possible interactions among them and possible effects yielded by the introduction of such un-human subject. Dreyfus deeply connects intelligence and body based on a phenomenological viewpoint. Thanks to his reading of Merleau-Ponty, he clearly stated that an intelligence must be embodied into a body to function. According to his suggestion, any AI designed to be human-like is doom to failure if there is no tight bound with a (...) human-like body. Today, we are facing the pervasive introduction of robots into our everyday life, and the problem of this co-existence raises again with new vigor since they are not mere speculations, but there are already products sold to the public. We will highlight how vulnerability has to be taken into consideration in the design of robots to create entities which are able to relate to human beings taking into consideration mainly the positions of Sartre, Habermas, Levinas, and Marleau-Ponty. A first part will focus on the vulnerability of the robots. Robots are going to be among us, but a real interaction is possible only the moment they have a “same” body of ours. Therefore, only through the realization of a “fragile” body we can achieve a cohabitation between equals. Thanks to Merleau-Ponty we will show how the vulnerability of a body is one of the most important element to found any social interaction. The second part will focus on how the robots will affect the vulnerability of the human subjects. To produce vulnerable robots is not a mere neutral introduction, but it shapes how the subjects are constituted. Thanks to Levinas, we will study how the vulnerable robots will shape the subjects. Thanks to Sartre, we will show how the creation of a different gaze in the robot changes the vulnerabilities of the human subjects. Introducing vulnerable robots is a way to shape ourselves. (shrink)

Personal AI is a new type of AI companion, distinct from the prevailing forms of AI companionship. Instead of playing a narrow and well-defined social role, like friend, lover, caretaker, or colleague, with a set of pre-determined responses and behaviors, Personal AI is engineered to tailor itself to the user, including learning to mirror the user’s unique emotional language and attitudes. This paper identifies two issues with Personal AI. First, like other AI companions, it is deceptive about the presence of (...) their emotions, which undermines the moral value of companionship. Second, Personal AI leads to a distinctly new form of deception concerning the origins of its emotions. Its emotional attitudes appear to belong to it, when in fact they are only reflections of the user. This results in what I dub “emotional bubbles”—the false impression that personal emotions are externally validated—which have at least two troubling implications. First, emotional bubbles prevent us from encountering emotional attitudes that differ from our own, which is likely to cripple emotional growth and the ability to form diverse social and emotional relationships. Second, if we assume, as some philosophers claim, that shared emotions are constitutive of shared values, it follows that Personal AI subverts joint moral deliberation. Users believe their personal values are externally validated, when they are only validated by themselves. Because of the absence of technovirtues able to handle this problem, I suggest that we proceed very cautiously with the development and marketing of Personal AI. (shrink)

This article defends two claims. First, humans could be in relationships characterised by hate with some robots. Second, it matters that humans could hate robots, as this hate could wrong the robots (by leaving them at risk of mistreatment, exploitation, etc.). In defending this second claim, I will thus be accepting that morally considerable robots either currently exist, or will exist in the near future, and so it can matter (morally speaking) how we treat these robots. The arguments presented in (...) this article make an important original contribution to the robo-philosophy literature, and particularly the literature on human–robot relationships (which typically only consider positive relationship types, e.g., love, friendship, etc.). Additionally, as explained at the end of the article, my discussions of robot hate could also have notable consequences for the emerging robot rights movement. Specifically, I argue that understanding human–robot relationships characterised by hate could actually help theorists argue for the rights of robots. (shrink)

This paper proposes to consider the question “What kind of other can an AI be for a human?”, to analyse a set of ethical and societal challenges associated with a hypothetical massive deployment of “AIs as others” in society (social robots, artificial companions, chatbots with relational purposes such as friendship or romantic partnership, etc.). The proposed answer is that six features characterize “AIs as others”: serviceable, commodified, surveillant, authoritative, techno-standardized, and interiority-less. The implications of each feature are explored in depth, (...) proposing three possible future scenarios (confusion, degradation, transformation), of which only the transformation scenario would be ethically acceptable. Through this analysis, a central thesis is developed, namely, that one of the main challenges of the transformation that “AIs as others” may catalyse is the adequate understanding of the otherness of AIs in relationship to humans. The conclusion is that for society to develop this adequate understanding, a new kind of “other” must be constructed, tailored to the characteristics of “AIs as others”. For it, a new term will be required (it is proposed “analytical other” [AO]), along with a suitable ontological status and a set of admissible roles. This socio-cultural creation of a new kind of other will require a transformation, a more mature and nuanced sense of otherness. The paper concludes by giving some recommendations to bring forth this transformation and proposing some questions and hypotheses that may inspire further research. (shrink)

As robots evolve from functional machines to potential sexual companions, they embody both utopian hopes and dystopian fears. This article explores the ethical implications of sex robots, focusing on power dynamics, objectification, and gender performance. Through Ann Cahill’s concept of derivatization, the article argues for a nuanced understanding of sexual objectification in the context of robo-erotics. While sex robots offer new possibilities for intimacy and desire, they also risk reinforcing problematic gender norms and power structures. The article introduces a queer (...) utopian framework, oscillating between hope and disgust, to examine how sex robots might subvert or perpetuate traditional scripts of sexuality. Ultimately, this work aims to situate sex robots within the broader landscape of technological advancement and its potential to reshape human sexuality. (shrink)

Human beings express affinity (Shinwa‐kan in Japanese language) in communicating transactive engagements among healthcare providers, patients and healthcare robots. The appearance of healthcare robots and their language capabilities often feature characteristic and appropriate compassionate dialogical functions in human–robot interactions. Elements of healthcare robot configurations comprising its physiognomy and communication properties are founded on the positivist philosophical perspective of being the summation of composite parts, thereby mimicking human persons. This article reviews Mori's theory of the Uncanny Valley and its consequent debates, (...) and examines "Uncanny" relations with generating healthcare robot conversational content with artificial affective communication (AAC) using natural language processing. With healthcare robots provoking influential physical composition and sensory expressions, the relations in human–healthcare robot transactive engagements are argued as supportive of the design and development in natural language processing. This implies that maintaining human–healthcare robot interaction and assessing the eeriness situations explained in the Uncanny Valley theory are crucial positions for healthcare robot functioning as a valuable commodity in health care. As such, physical features, language capabilities and mobility of healthcare robots establish the primacy of the AAC with natural language processing as integral to healthcare robot–human healthcare practice. (shrink)

This paper asks three fundamental questions on the nature of trust: What is trust? What is trustworthiness? When is trust warranted? These discussions are then applied to the context of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), asking whether we can trust social robots, whether they can be trustworthy, and, lastly, whether we should trust them. After revising the literature on the nature of trust and reliance on one hand, and on trust in social robots, considering both properties-based and non-properties-based views, on the other (...) hand, this paper defends that, given the current state of technology, we can be subjects of a paradoxical scenario in which there is trust without trustworthiness, i.e., human users that interact with social robots can develop something resembling interpersonal trust towards an artificial entity which cannot be trustworthy. This occurs because we perceive and treat social robots as trustworthy entities, while they seem to lack certain properties that would make them capable of being trustworthy (as well as untrustworthy). Understanding our psychology in HRI and trying to discern what social robots are (and are not) is capital when confronted with ethical issues. Some of the ethical issues that arise in the context of trust without trustworthiness will be considered to address the debate about if we should trust social robots. This paper concludes that we should, at least for now, not trust social robots, given the potential harms that can be done and the responsibility gaps that might appear when these harms are to be repaired. (shrink)

This article explores the implications of what it means to moralize about future technological innovations. Specifically, I have been invited to comment on three papers that attempt to think about what seems to be an impending social reality: the availability of life-like sex robots. In response, I explore what it means to moralize about future technological innovations from a secular perspective, i.e., a perspective grounded in an immanent, socio-historically contingent view. I review the arguments of Nancy Jecker, Mark Howard and (...) Robert Sparrow, and Wang Jue and respond to their arguments concerning the permissible limits of human-robot sexual interaction. I argue that we are in a poor epistemic position regarding what the actual future human response will be towards sex robots and how it affects society generally. Given this poor epistemic position, I argue that moralizing about future trends like human-robot sex is difficult because we do not have the relevant facts to work with. Furthermore, I remain skeptical as to policy recommendations based on socio-historically contingent moral viewpoints both because they do not carry in principle moral authority to say what future others may or may not do with their property and they may not even appeal to future secular others, insofar as secular morality is plural and consistently develops anew. (shrink)

The overall aim of this thesis is to look at some philosophical issues surrounding autonomous systems in society and war. These issues can be divided into three main categories. The first, discussed in papers I and II, concerns ethical issues surrounding the use of autonomous systems – where the focus in this thesis is on military robots. The second issue, discussed in paper III, concerns how to make sure that advanced robots behave ethically adequate. The third issue, discussed in papers (...) IV and V, has to do with agency and responsibility. Another issue, somewhat aside from the philosophical, has to do with coping with future technologies, and developing methods for dealing with potentially disruptive technologies. This is discussed in papers VI and VII. Paper I systemizes some ethical issues surrounding the use of UAVs in war, with the laws of war as a backdrop. It is suggested that the laws of war are too wide and might be interpreted differently depending on which normative moral theory is used. Paper II is about future, more advanced autonomous robots, and whether the use of such robots can undermine the justification for killing in war. The suggestion is that this justification is substantially undermined if robots are used to replace humans to a high extent. Papers I and II both suggest revisions or additions to the laws or war. Paper III provides a discussion on one normative moral theory – ethics of care – connected to care robots. The aim is twofold: first, to provide a plausible and ethically relevant interpretation of the key term care in ethics of care, and second, to discuss whether ethics of care may be a suitable theory to implement in care robots. Paper IV discusses robots connected to agency and responsibility, with a focus on consciousness. The paper has a functionalistic approach, and it is suggested that robots should be considered agents if they can behave as if they are, in a moral Turing test. Paper V is also about robots and agency, but with a focus on free will. The main question is whether robots can have free will in the same sense as we consider humans to have free will when holding them responsible for their actions in a court of law. It is argued that autonomy with respect to norms is crucial for the agency of robots. Paper VI investigates the assessment of socially disruptive technological change. The coevolution of society and potentially disruptive technolgies makes decision-guidance on such technologies difficult. Four basic principles are proposed for such decision guidance, involving interdisciplinary and participatory elements. Paper VII applies the results from paper VI – and a workshop – to autonomous systems, a potentially disruptive technology. A method for dealing with potentially disruptive technolgies is developed in the paper. (shrink)