The Robot Makers

Chun, Bohkyung; Knight, Heather

doi:10.1145/3377343

Cited by 25 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…AIS are often designed to have human-like features to please humans and a stream of research in social robotic and HCI is concerned with optimising these qualities to improve perceived interactional meaningfulness, trust, and connectedness [38,39]. In relationship to human behaviour, anthropomorphism is 'the tendency to imbue the behaviour of nonhuman agents with human-like characteristics' [40, p.864].…”

Section: Genai and The Challenge Of Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In research, participants may be unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which they anthropomorphise. For instance, in a study of robot makers by Chun and Knight [38], they found that anthropomorphism was strongly evident in interviews describing participants' experiences of the robots but was frequently disavowed. In this paper, we not only acknowledge our tendencies to anthropomorphise AI, but we also examine how these tendencies and perceptions influences our subjectivity and relationship with AI.…”

Section: Genai and The Challenge Of Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

GenAI and me: the hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership

Boulus-Rødje,

Cranefield,

Doyle

et al. 2024

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that emergent AI systems should be viewed as working partners rather than tools. Building on this perspective, this study investigates the process through which academics develop a working partnership with generative AI chatbots using a relationship lens and collaborative autoethnographic methods. Based on a collaborative autoethnographic analysis of our experiences of working with AI, we identify five stages of relationship development in building a successful working partnership with generative AI: Playing Around, Infatuation, Committing, Frustration, and Enlightenment and Readjustment. In reporting each stage, we provide vignettes to illustrate the emotional and cognitive challenges and rewards involved, the developing skills, and the experienced anthropomorphic dimension of this emerging relationship. Drawing on prior theory, we identify and examine three types of work that are required in developing this working partnership: articulation work, relationship work, and identity work. We analyse how each type of work unfolds with the stages of relationship development and consider implications for research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Genai and The Challenge Of Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genai and The Challenge Of Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

GenAI and me: the hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership

Boulus-Rødje,

Cranefield,

Doyle

et al. 2024

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous work on robot teams explored the attitudes of frontline employees who use industrial robots every day ( Sauppé and Mutlu, 2015 ; Elprama et al, 2017 ; Wurhofer et al, 2018 ; Welfare et al, 2019 ). Additionally, an extensive ethnographic investigation studied anthropomorphism in teams that work with robots ( Chun and Knight, 2020 ). While these studies focus on the team that directly works side-by-side with robots, our work focuses on the experience of teams that design and build new robots.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting the Dots of Social Robot Design From Interviews With Robot Creators

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite promises about the near-term potential of social robots to share our daily lives, they remain unable to form autonomous, lasting, and engaging relationships with humans. Many companies are deploying social robots into the consumer and commercial market; however, both the companies and their products are relatively short lived for many reasons. For example, current social robots succeed in interacting with humans only within controlled environments, such as research labs, and for short time periods since longer interactions tend to provoke user disengagement. We interviewed 13 roboticists from robot manufacturing companies and research labs to delve deeper into the design process for social robots and unearth the many challenges robot creators face. Our research questions were: 1) What are the different design processes for creating social robots? 2) How are users involved in the design of social robots? 3) How are teams of robot creators constituted? Our qualitative investigation showed that varied design practices are applied when creating social robots but no consensus exists about an optimal or standard one. Results revealed that users have different degrees of involvement in the robot creation process, from no involvement to being a central part of robot development. Results also uncovered the need for multidisciplinary and international teams to work together to create robots. Drawing upon these insights, we identified implications for the field of Human-Robot Interaction that can shape the creation of best practices for social robot design.

show abstract

“…2016; used with permission). Panel B: An anthropologist at a robotics company in North America, where she visited for three weeks collecting ethnographic data (© Chun and Knight 2020; used with permission). Panel C: An anthropologist planting rice at their fieldsite (© Liana Chua; used with permission).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for the occurrence of sexual misconduct during archaeological and anthropological fieldwork

Bradford

Crema

2022

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fieldwork is crucial to advancing knowledge in archaeology and anthropology, but previous works suggests that between 64 and 68 percent of respondents experience sexual misconduct during fieldwork. Going forward, fieldwork must be made safe and inclusive. To achieve this, we must understand why sexual misconduct takes place during fieldwork. We surveyed an international sample of archaeologists and anthropologists (n=300) about their most recent fieldwork experience. We examine evidence for risk factors predicting sexual misconduct in fieldsites, and our findings suggest that length of fieldwork, presence and communication of policies and protocols, and the gender and sexuality of the individual are all significant. In particular, we find evidence for increased risk to nonmale and nonheterosexual individuals. We also gathered qualitative evidence from our respondents, who reported that in some cases they were discouraged from reporting and faced retaliation, they were dissatisfied with the handling of complaints, and fieldsite policies and protocols were not consistently or effectively implemented. Fieldwork can be a high‐risk environment for marginalized individuals to experience sexual misconduct, and when clear policies and procedures are lacking, it can also be a low‐risk environment for perpetrators in terms of consequences. To make fieldwork a safe environment for all, policies and protocols that mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct must be consistently implemented and properly communicated.

show abstract

The Robot Makers

Cited by 25 publications

References 53 publications

GenAI and me: the hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership

GenAI and me: the hidden work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership

Connecting the Dots of Social Robot Design From Interviews With Robot Creators

Risk factors for the occurrence of sexual misconduct during archaeological and anthropological fieldwork

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About