Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

Abstract

Social robotics entertains a particular relationship with anthropomorphism, which it neither sees as a cognitive error, nor as a sign of immaturity. Rather it considers that this common human tendency, which is hypothesized to have evolved because it favored cooperation among early humans, can be used today to facilitate social interactions between humans and a new type of cooperative and interactive agents – social robots. This approach leads social robotics to focus research on the engineering of robots that activate anthropomorphic projections in users. The objective is to give robots “social presence” and “social behaviors” that are sufficiently credible for human users to engage in comfortable and potentially long-lasting relations with these machines. This choice of ‘applied anthropomorphism’ as a research methodology exposes the artifacts produced by social robotics to ethical condemnation: social robots are judged to be a “cheating” technology, as they generate in users the illusion of reciprocal social and affective relations. This article takes position in this debate, not only developing a series of arguments relevant to philosophy of mind, cognitive sciences, and robotic AI, but also asking what social robotics can teach us about anthropomorphism. On this basis, we propose a theoretical perspective that characterizes anthropomorphism as a basic mechanism of interaction, and rebuts the ethical reflections that a priori condemns “anthropomorphism-based” social robots. To address the relevant ethical issues, we promote a critical experimentally based ethical approach to social robotics, “synthetic ethics,” which aims at allowing humans to use social robots for two main goals: self-knowledge and moral growth.

Embodiment: The Ecology of Mind

“…To put it otherwise, the ecological approach adds a dialectical dimension to social robotics, for it argues that it is not only the particular characteristics of artificial systems that determine social AI, but also the ecology of such systems and their partners, which determine the particular characteristics of the artificial systems involved. As Luisa Damiano and I have argued elsewhere, this is an ecology that is in the process of being built and it is important to understand from the beginning, the way in which these machines will change the social world and the way in which the social world will determines what these artificial systems are [20,21].…”

Anthropomorphic Design: Emotional Perception for Deformable Object

“…In the field of robotics, the cognitive underpinnings of emotional interaction between human and anthropomorphized robotics is considered crucial since robots have “synthetic psychology,” a state of not possessing internal emotion regardless of external emotional expression ( Damiano and Dumouchel, 2018 ). That is, this new kind of synthetic interaction between human and anthropomorphized technology should be explored for the derivation of the emotionally interactive technologies considered necessary for social ( Schmitz, 2011 ; Riether et al, 2012 ; Kwak, 2014 ) functionality, which enhance familiarity ( Choi and Kim, 2009 ), likability ( Castro-González et al, 2016 ), and encouragement ( Breazeal, 2006 ).…”

Foundations of Erobotics

“…And, while we tend to exaggerate what is necessary to achieve the “affective autonomy” involved in our relationships, we might need to downplay the prerequisites for experiencing erotic relationships [ 235 ]. That is, if we consider erotic agency and cognition as anchored in a social co-determination of affects [ 60 , 61 , 97 ], we should perhaps also consider that the relational autonomy of behaviour enacted by erobots has the potential to transform the niche in which this autonomy is exercised, as well as human and machine cognitions.…”

“…Researchers in HMI rarely explain what they mean by co - evolution beyond the fact that humans and machines influence each other in a perpetual feedback loop [ 60 , 97 ]. This is understandable, since humans’ interactive, sociotechnological, and evolutionary phenomena stem from micro and macro hypercomplex processes that are studied across disciplines using different models and mechanisms (e.g., in physics, AI, robotics, neurosciences, biology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, and behavioral sciences).…”