Critics have argued that human-controlled avatar interactions fail to facilitate the kinds of expressivity and social understanding afforded by our physical bodies. We identify three claims meant to justify the supposed expressive limits of avatar interactions compared to our physical interactions. First, “The Limited Expressivity Claim”: avatars have a more limited expressive range than our physical bodies. Second, “The Inputted Expressivity Claim”: any expressive avatarial behaviour must be deliberately inputted by the user. Third, “The Decoding Claim”: users must infer or (...) figure out the expressive meaning of human-controlled avatars’ behaviour through cognitively onerous processes. With the aim of critically assessing all three claims, we analyze data collected through observations of and interviews with expert players of the avatar-based video game League of Legends. Focusing on Daniel Stern’s (2010) notion of vitality, we analyze the participants’ descriptions of seeing and interacting with other avatars during performance. Our analysis shows that the informants experience human-based avatarial interactions as qualitatively different than interactions with bots, that the informants see the movements of other players’ avatars as having different expressive styles, and that the informants actively use and manipulate this avatarial expressivity during performance. The results of our analysis, we argue, provide reasons for loosening or resisting the three claims concerning the limits of avatarial expressivity. (shrink)

Questions about robots feeling pain are important because the experience of pain implies sentience and the ability to suffer. Pain is not the same as nociception, a reflex response to an aversive stimulus. The experience of pain in others has to be inferred. Danaher’s (Sci Eng Ethics 26(4):2023–2049, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x) ‘ethical behaviourist’ account claims that if a robot behaves in the same way as an animal that is recognised to have moral status, then its moral status should also be assumed. (...) Similarly, under a precautionary approach (Sebo in Harvard Rev Philos 25:51–70, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview20185913), entities from foetuses to plants and robots are given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be sentient. However, there is a growing consensus about the scientific criteria used to indicate pain and the ability to suffer in animals (Birch in Anim Sentience, 2017. https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1200; Sneddon et al. in Anim Behav 97:201–212, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007). These include the presence of a central nervous system, changed behaviour in response to pain, and the effects of analgesic pain relief. Few of these criteria are met by robots, and there are risks to assuming that they are sentient and capable of suffering pain. Since robots lack nervous systems and living bodies there is little reason to believe that future robots capable of feeling pain could (or should) be developed. (shrink)

Don Ihde’s alterity relation focuses on the quasi-otherness of dynamic technologies that interact with humans. The alterity relation is one means to study relations between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, research on alterity relations has not defined the difference between playing with a toy, using a computer, and interacting with a social robot or chatbot. We suggest that Ihde’s quasi-other concept fails to account for the interactivity, autonomy, and adaptability of social robots and chatbots, which more closely approach (...) human alterity. In this article, we will examine experiences with a chatbot, Replika, and a humanoid robot, a RealDoll, to show how some users experience AI systems as companions. First, we show that the perception of social robots and chatbots as intimate companions is grounded in communication. Advances in natural language processing (NLP) and natural language generation (NLG) allow a relationship to form between some users and social robots and chatbots. In this relationship, some users experience social robots and chatbots as more than quasi-others. We will use Kanemitsu’s another-other concept to analyze cases where social robots and chatbots should be distinguished from quasi-others. (shrink)

Conversational agents (CA) are thought to be promising for psychotherapy because they give the impression of being able to engage in conversations with human users. However, given the high risk for therapy patients who are already in a vulnerable situation, there is a need to investigate the extent to which CA are able to contribute to therapy goals and to discuss CA’s limitations, especially in complex cases. In this paper, we understand psychotherapy as a way of dealing with existential situations (...) and position CAs in the context of the therapeutic experience of patients. This experience is determined by the patient’s unique personal context and specific therapy goals. We suggest that psychotherapy is a fundamentally dialogical activity, because it crucially involves work on the self and one’s self-narrative. This brings us to our central question: is it possible for CAs to engage in a productive therapeutic dialogue, given their limitations as epistemic agents? We will discuss several of those limitations, show how these undermine the possibility of engaging in a therapeutic dialogue, and illustrate those limitations through discussions of the cases of grief and abuse. (shrink)