Interaction Studies 11 (2):220-226 (2010)
Noel and Amanda Sharkey have written an insightful paper on the ethical issues concerned with the development of childcare robots for infants and toddlers, discussing the possible consequences for the psychological and emotional development and wellbeing of children. The ethical issues involving the use of robots as toys, interaction partners or possible caretakers of children are discussed reviewing a wide literature on the pathology and causes of attachment disorders. The potential risks emerging from the analysis lead the authors to promote a multidisciplinary debate on the current legislation to deal with future robot childcare. As a general first consideration, the questions arising from the paper are extremely timely since current robot technology is surprisingly close to achieving autonomous bonding and sustained socialization with human toddlers. The evolution of robot technology has been so speedy in the last few years that even if a discipline like Human-machine Interaction has only recently welcomed human-robot interaction within its disciplinary scope, a variety of social robots have started to populate our life and daily activities. In the past five years human-robot interaction has received a significant and growing interest leading to the development of the so-called robots companions, a term that emphasizes a constant interaction and co-operation between human beings and robotic machines. While Noel and Amanda Sharkey in their paper take a critical stance on the consequences of the use of robots as companions or caretakers, others researchers seem more keen to highlight the potential of caregiver robots in particular in educational settings. In this commentary I’ll try to offer my personal viewpoint on the consequences of using robot companions or caretakers of children on learning and education, and the effects of technologies on cognitive skills development, a controversial area of research where different findings show how little is known.
|Keywords||Robot Education Learning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
On Building Robot Persons: Response to Zlatev. [REVIEW]Selmer Bringsjord - 2004 - Minds and Machines 14 (3):381-385.
Mindful Tutors: Linguistic Choice and Action Demonstration in Speech to Infants and a Simulated Robot.Kerstin Fischer, Kilian Foth, Katharina J. Rohlfing & Britta Wrede - 2011 - Interaction Studies 12 (1):134-161.
The Ethics of Robot Servitude.Stephen Petersen - 2007 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 19 (1):43-54.
Human-Robot Interaction and Psychoanalysis.Franco Scalzone & Guglielmo Tamburrini - 2013 - AI and Society 28 (3):297-307.
Granny and the Robots: Ethical Issues in Robot Care for the Elderly.Amanda Sharkey & Noel Sharkey - 2012 - Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1):27-40.
Can Young Children Learn Words From a Robot?Yusuke Moriguchi, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Yoko Shimada & Shoji Itakura - 2011 - Interaction Studies 12 (1):107-118.
The March of the Robot Dogs.Robert Sparrow - 2002 - Ethics and Information Technology 4 (4):305-318.
Artificial Companions: Empathy and Vulnerability Mirroring in Human-Robot Relations.Mark Coeckelbergh - 2010 - Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4 (3).
There is No 'I' in 'Robot': Robots and Utilitarianism (Expanded & Revised).Christopher Grau - 2011 - In Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.), Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 451.
The Crying Shame of Robot Nannies: An Ethical Appraisal.Noel Sharkey & Amanda Sharkey - 2010 - Interaction Studies 11 (2):161-190.
Added to index2010-08-16
Total downloads56 ( #88,397 of 2,126,920 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #242,670 of 2,126,920 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.