Behavioral Objects: The Rise of the Evocative Machines

Abstract

A new race of artifacts comes equipped with behavioral properties. Those properties transmute the very nature of the object, granting it a life of its own and a special status that stems from the psychological attributions humans naturally produce when confronted by autonomous movements. This article examines what makes behavioral objects special in terms of the psychological properties they evoke in an observer. We look into the notion of behavior and evaluate to what extent the concept of anthropomorphism is a valid construct when considering the behavior of artificial objects. Based on recent research in cognitive psychology, we propose a framework to conceptualize the way people infer psychological attributes from movement, and the way it applies to behavioral objects.

Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

“…This re-evaluation of anthropomorphism is reinforced by recent findings in cognitive sciences, which question its classic (for example, Piagetian) psychological understanding that confines anthropomorphism to the early childhood, and essentially views it as a cognitive mistake (Airenti, 2015). This new conception argues that anthropomorphism constitutes a fundamental and permanent dimension of the human mind, rather than an early stage of its cognitive development, that is grounded in neural mechanisms also found in other older species, and which is modulated by individual traits (Duffy, 2003; Złotowski et al, 2015; Levillain and Zibetti, 2017). …”

“…Therefore, a significant part of its research enquires into the conditions of activation of anthropomorphic projections. The focus is on two key factors, human-like (anthropomorphizing) appearance and autonomous movement or behavior (Levillain and Zibetti, 2017). The basic hypothesis is that strong realism in either of these two factors allows a robot to reach the “social threshold” where humans experience its presence as that of another social agent and are disposed to socially interact with the machine.…”

“…Interestingly, it stresses the difference between the form of anthropomorphism occasioned when one interacts with social robots, and anthropomorphic projections evoked by other types of objects, such as traditional dolls, cars or computers (Levillain and Zibetti, 2017). This difference is generally described in terms of the cognitive activity involved.…”

ConVRgence (VRIC) Virtual Reality International Conference Proceedings

“…Much as a swarm of birds or a fish bank, spontaneously organizing into emergent states (Sumpter, 2006;Couzin, 2009), the cloud could display a self organizing behavior with expressive variations. Designing behaviors for an autonomous artifact is about channeling human intuitions about movement (Levillain Zibetti ;Hoffman Ju, 2014). It is about creating movement patterns that an observer may construe as goal-oriented, possibly intentional actions (Heider Simmel, 1944;Scholl Tremoulet, 2000).…”

Foundations of Erobotics

“…The term erobots includes but is not limited to virtual or augmented partners, erotic chatbots, and sex robots [ 8 , 93 ]. Unlike previous technology, erobots do not simply mediate erotic experiences, but can also increasingly be perceived as subjects, rather than objects of desire [ 72 – 74 , 87 , 178 , 245 , 307 ], in part due to their growing agency (i.e., the capability to act in/on the world to achieve goals; [ 154 , 258 , 266 ]). This exposes humanity to the possibility of intimacy and sexuality with machines [ 8 , 93 ].…”