“Involving Interface”: An Extended Mind Theoretical Approach to Roboethics

Abstract

In 2008 the authors held "Involving Interface," a lively interdisciplinary event focusing on issues of biological, sociocultural, and technological interfacing (see Acknowledgments). Inspired by discussions at this event, in this article, we further discuss the value of input from neuroscience for developing robots and machine interfaces, and the value of philosophy, the humanities, and the arts for identifying persistent links between human interfacing and broader ethical concerns. The importance of ongoing interdisciplinary debate and public communication on scientific and technical advances is also highlighted. Throughout, the authors explore the implications of the extended mind hypothesis for notions of moral accountability and robotics.

The Ethical Dimensions of Public Opinion on Smart Robots

“…There seems to be little interest in contemplating how humans should treat these robots, in the study, especially socalled "smart robots". This supports the argument by Anderson et al (2010), which called for more discussion on what robots' rights might look like in the notion of "roboethics". Also, a general lack of discussion on robots that adequately takes into consideration various current environmental perspectives and challenges, marks an interesting gap to be filled in the literature.…”

An Ethical Framework for Smart Robots

“…For example, a scenario arises where it could be considered wrong to be "inhumane" to a homecare robot that is no longer of use to a household, even though that robot has no real autonomy or personality (Petersen, 2007). Similarly, Anderson et al (2010) argue that roboethics should put more emphasis on developing ethical research guidelines for experimentation on robots, along the lines of rules for experimentation and testing on animals. Although one might argue that robots do not possess "personality", societies actually make "persons" by producing them partly through a process of personification, that is, attributing human qualities to non-human objects, which is conferring the status of a "person" to something non-human (Steinert, 2014).…”

“…Thus, forcing an autonomous smart robot to stick with its designed task, in such a situation, could be deemed unethical, perhaps upheld by law even if the "owner" of the robot paid for the robot to do the designed task (Petersen, 2007). Thus, future work in roboethics needs to discuss more about the potential domain of "robots' rights" (Anderson et al, 2010), alongside of whether rights only exist for human beings as owners of robots, the latter which by definition have no "rights" at all.…”

“…After all, humanity has deliberately built automated tools to increase its power and foster economic progress by eliminating manual labour and needless drudgery (Veruggio & Operto, 2008). Thus, in the meantime we have become highly reliant on technology (Anderson et al, 2010). On the other hand, robots do not only cause job losses, but also create jobs.…”

Robotic Surgery: Bioethical Aspects

“…Another interesting composition involving robotics and ethics is the roboethics - a term coined by Gianmarco Veruggio 33,34 - which is concerned primarily with human behavior in interactions with robots and other machines that hold artificial intelligence 2 , 15 . It is interesting to note that in recent movies She (2014, directed by Spike Jonze) and Eve (2012; directed by Kike Maíllo) contain good examples of ethical conflicts that could result from those relationships.…”