Ontological Boundaries between Humans and Computers and the Implications for Human-Machine Communication

Guzman, Andrea L.

doi:10.30658/hmc.1.3

Cited by 95 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Respondents imagined the consequences of human-robot interaction, and held a relatively open-minded or even positive attitude about a future with robots, though some held that the ontological boundary of robot as tool was necessary for such optimism. These findings show support for claims (e.g., Guzman, 2020) that human-robot ontology a a c d a b c a acc a c a d integration. AI-supported robotic technology presents great promise; however, its advancement challenges the ontological divide that has implications not only for human-machine interaction but also for self-identity and ultimately human-human relations.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Living With Robots: An Ontological Leap?

Mays

Lei

Katz

2020

SPIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics applications have proliferated primarily in the industrial sphere, and social scientific studies emphasized robots’ functionality and appropriateness for certain roles, especially those related to work and most particularly to robots replacing humans’ jobs. Notably, robot studies are often premised on negative prognostications, emphasizing how robots threaten livelihoods and are disruptive. As AI and robot technologies advance, however, more positive possibilities arise for robots’ social integration. However, there is an ontological divide between humans and machines that will likely influence people’s responses to and interactions with these emerging technologies. People may logically know and intend to treat robots as mere technological tools, but reflexively respond to them socially. This study explores these possible dynamics and examines how people perceive robots as social and human-like entities. A qualitative analysis of open-ended comments (N=591) collected through a survey on robot perceptions was conducted. Five main themes about social life with robots were revealed: robot as tool/machine (32.5% of comments), human-robot relationships (26.9%), social adjustment (19.0%), robot rights (10.7%), and robots’ aliveness/appearance (10.0%). The findings show that human-robot ontology is an important consideration for robots’ social acceptance and integration. AI-supported robotic technology presents great promise; however, its advancement challenges the ontological divide that has implications not only for human-machine interaction but also for self-identity and ultimately human-human relations. In terms of suggestions, these dynamics should be explored in tandem with ways to improve human-machine communication and considered from usability and design standpoints.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Living With Robots: An Ontological Leap?

Mays

Lei

Katz

2020

SPIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars also have shown that people’s conceptualizations of the nature of people and technology are wide-ranging (e.g. Edwards, 2018; Guzman, In Review), thus necessitating further study regarding how people discern between the nature of people and technology and the resulting implications of such ontological interpretations. This call for empirical research is not intended to diminish the importance of philosophical inquiry and cultural critique that has long focused on questions of ontology.…”

Section: An Hmc Research Agenda For Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda

Guzman

Lewis

2019

New Media & Society

Self Cite

397

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence (AI) and people’s interactions with it—through virtual agents, socialbots, and language-generation software—do not fit neatly into paradigms of communication theory that have long focused on human–human communication. To address this disconnect between communication theory and emerging technology, this article provides a starting point for articulating the differences between communicative AI and previous technologies and introduces a theoretical basis for navigating these conditions in the form of scholarship within human–machine communication (HMC). Drawing on an HMC framework, we outline a research agenda built around three key aspects of communicative AI technologies: (1) the functional dimensions through which people make sense of these devices and applications as communicators, (2) the relational dynamics through which people associate with these technologies and, in turn, relate to themselves and others, and (3) the metaphysical implications called up by blurring ontological boundaries surrounding what constitutes human, machine, and communication.

show abstract

“…This cueing is multimodal, comprising visual (e.g., expressions and gazes; cf. Chesher & Andreallo, 2020), verbal (textual conveyances or vocalizations; Pradhan et al, 2019), and behavioral (e.g., social context awareness cues; Fraune et al, 2020) properties that denote a "living/nonliving," "born/made," and capability and agency distinctions (Guzman, 2020).…”

Section: Exploring Ontological-category Differences In Sexual Communimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study moves toward bridging that knowledge gap by experimentally examining sex-chat participants' experiences as a function of the chat partner's perceived ontological category-the prototypical class of entity to which a given agent is thought to belong. Shared category-membership (i.e., humans among themselves as a group) is understood as a heuristic for self-similar experience and implicit norming, and discrete category-membership (i.e., humans vs. machines) makes salient divergent origins, autonomies, and emotional and intellectual capabilities (Guzman, 2020). Therefore, it is possible that the experience of chatting with a machine partner could be procedurally and effectually different than with a human partner (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: Gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions.

Banks¹,

Ouytsel²

2020

Technology, Mind, and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From social-network spambots and forensic chatbots to dating simulation games, sexual communication with machines is not uncommon in contemporary culture-however, it remains effectively a black-box phenomenon. There is little empirical research examining how sexual human-machine communication (HMC-S) is experienced, whether it is impactful, or whether it may be similar or different to human-human sexual communication. Advancing our understanding of those questions is vital in understanding the potential for machine partners to foster the health and welfare benefits, as well as the potential to have negative impacts. This study takes a first step in considering experiential parity or divergence by experimentally investigating 271 people's cybersex experience with a chat partner that was visually and textually cued as a human or a machine. Multimethod analysis suggests there may be no difference in gratifications from sex chat with ostensible machine versus human partners; however, participants seem to experience tensions between the gratifications and shortcomings of cybersex with machine-cued partners.

show abstract

Ontological Boundaries between Humans and Computers and the Implications for Human-Machine Communication

Cited by 95 publications

References 22 publications

Living With Robots: An Ontological Leap?

Living With Robots: An Ontological Leap?

Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda

Cybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: Gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About