Recently a number of well-known public figures have expressed concern about the future development of artificial intelligence (AI), by noting that AI could get out of control and affect human beings and society in disastrous ways. Many of these cautionary notes are alarmist and unrealistic, and while there has been some pushback on these concerns, the deep flaws in the thinking that leads to them have not been called out. Much of the fear and trepidation is based on misunderstanding and confusion about what AI is and can ever be. In this work we identify 3 factors that contribute to this "AI anxiety": an exclusive focus on AI programs that leaves humans out of the picture, confusion about autonomy in computational entities and in humans, and an inaccurate conception of technological development. With this analysis we argue that there are good reasons for anxiety about AI but not for the reasons typically given by AI alarmists.

Software agents' ability to interact within different open systems, designed by different groups, presupposes an agreement on an unambiguous definition of a set of concepts, used to describe the context of the interaction and the communication language the agents can use. Agents' interactions ought to allow for reliable expectations on the possible evolution of the system; however, in open systems interacting agents may not conform to predefined specifications. A possible solution is to define interaction environments including a normative component, with suitable rules to regulate the behaviour of agents.To tackle this problem we propose an application-independent metamodel of artificial institutions that can be used to define open multiagent systems. In our view an artificial institution is made up by an ontology that models the social context of the interaction, a set of authorizations to act on the institutional context, a set of linguistic conventions for the performance of institutional actions and a system of norms that are necessary to constrain the agents' actions.

As part of the goal of developing a genuinely open multiagent system, many efforts are devoted to the definition of a standard Agent Communication Language (ACL). The aim of this paper is to propose a logical framework for the definition of ACL semantics based upon the concept of (social) commitment. Our framework relies on the assumption that agent communication should be analyzed in terms of communicative acts, by means of which agents create and manipulate commitments, provided certain contextual conditions hold. We propose formal definitions of such actions in the context of a temporal logic that extends CTL * with past-directed temporal operators. In the system we propose, called CTL ± , time is assumed to be discrete, with no start or end point, and branching in the future. CTL ± is then extended to represent actions and commitments; in particular, we formally define the conditions under which a commitment is fulfilled or violated. Finally, we show how our logic of commitment can be used to define the semantics of an ACL.

A critically important ethical issue facing the AI research community is how AI research and AI products can be responsibly conceptualised and presented to the public. A good deal of fear and concern about uncontrollable AI is now being displayed in public discourse. Public understanding of AI is being shaped in a way that may ultimately impede AI research. The public discourse as well as discourse among AI researchers leads to at least two problems: a confusion about the notion of 'autonomy' that induces people to attribute to machines something comparable to human autonomy, and a 'sociotechnical blindness' that hides the essential role played by humans at every stage of the design and deployment of an AI system. Here our purpose is to develop and use a language with the aim to reframe the discourse in AI and shed light on the real issues in the discipline.

Responsible Robotics is about developing robots in ways that take their social implications into account, which includes conceptually framing robots and their role in the world accurately. We are now in the process of incorporating robots into our world and we are trying to figure out what to make of them and where to put them in our conceptual, physical, economic, legal, emotional and moral world. How humans think about robots, especially humanoid social robots, which elicit complex and sometimes disconcerting reactions, is not predetermined. The animal-robot analogy is one of the most commonly used in attempting to frame interactions between humans and robots and it also tends to push in the direction of blurring the distinction between humans and machines. We argue that, despite some shared characteristics, when it comes to thinking about the moral status of humanoid robots, legal liability, and the impact of treatment of humanoid robots on how humans treat one another, analogies with animals are misleading.