Empathy, androids and ‘authentic experience’

Lee, Billy

doi:10.1080/09540090600868847

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If human participants respond to robots that speak (Arita et al 2005) and exhibit gestures (Sugiyama et al 2006) and facial characteristics that evoke emotional responses (Breazeal 2002), perhaps we can begin to determine what functional characteristics people will find to be significant to the ascription of moral consideration. Is it empathy (Lee 2006), language awareness, bipedalism, physical or psychic pain, or some other grouping of human isomorphic characteristics that are the determinant factors? Those identified aspects could then become the starting point for the design of an android.…”

Section: The Distinction Between Human and Person Is Controversial (Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist?

Calverley

2006

Connection Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Androids have begun to act in ways that, on the surface, seem human. However, no one is prepared to view them as anything other than property. As androids become more sophisticated, and as engineers try harder to make them 'conscious', moral, ethical and legal issues will arise. An analogy can be drawn with the animal rights movement suggesting that, with enough complexity, androids may lay claim to some moral status even though this may be less than what is required for legal personhood. However, there are significant differences between animals and androids. Identifying similarities and differences, which may ultimately depend on how we come to conceive of human consciousness, will lead to an understanding of how our ideas about consciousness impact on our concept of rights. A moral dilemma may come early in android development, and when it does, it could have unexpected ramifications if not understood by researchers. Failure to be aware of this risk could result in reactions that curtail android science.

show abstract

Section: The Distinction Between Human and Person Is Controversial (Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist?

Calverley

2006

Connection Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because it exhibits intentions, empathy, and consideration, and thus prompts other people to act as a 'cognitive resource ' (cf. Clark 1997, Lee 2006. The action ceases to be centred on the individual and, instead, becomes a means of co-ordinating interaction partners.…”

Section: Why Start With Norms?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What baboons, babies and Tetris players tell us about interaction: a biosocial view of norm-based social learning

Cowley

MacDorman

2006

Connection Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Could androids use movements to build relationships? For people, relationships are created with the help of behaviour-shaping norms, which infants begin to discover and manipulate by the third month. To build relationships, machines can also learn to exploit human reactions in real-time decision-making. In the video game Tetris, for example, affect co-opts computer-generated patterns to simplify cognitive tasks: norms mediate what Kirsh and Maglio (Cognitive Sci., 18, pp. 513-549, 1994) term epistemic actions, which allow implicit knowledge to shape key pressing in ways that, given past games, are likely to be informative and valuable. Expert players act to change their cognitive states by allowing the game's higher-level states to constrain their lower-level actions. Since this process enables the development of expertise, we might expect it to be widespread; but it seems marginal in hamadryas baboons, although they use affect and complex norms. In humans, by contrast, infants use adults as cognitive resources in developing their epistemic abilities. This has engineering implications for android designers. Since androids can elicit epistemic actions, engineers need to develop an affectsensitive interface. If successful at this, even rudimentary co-action may prompt people to report experiencing androids as both making choices and violating expectations.

show abstract

“…We're suckers not for realism but for relationships '' (quoted in Allis 2004). (See also Bernstein et al 2007;Breazeal 2002Breazeal , 2003Fell-Seifer et al 2007;Kumar and Benbasat 2004;Lee 2006. ) Blascovich and Bailenson (2011) explored person-to-avatar interactions in experimental settings and, like those studying robots, find similarly meaningful interactions.…”

Section: And Then There's Technologymentioning

confidence: 98%