The Parasitic Nature of Social AI: Sharing Minds with the Mindless

Sætra, Henrik Skaug

doi:10.1007/s12124-020-09523-6

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This takes us to the mechanism of change that Saetra (2019bSaetra ( , 2020b labels robotomorphy. This is inspired by the term ratomorphy, which describes the tendency of animal researchers to reduce human beings into something compatible with the traits of rats (Koestler, 1967).…”

Section: Robotomorphy and Social Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have asked whether robots can love, whether human-robot relationships are possible, what the nature of human-robot relationships are, and whether humans can develop loving affections for robots (de Graaf, 2016;Levy, 2009;Nyholm, 2020;Viik, 2020). Relatedly, many have examined whether robots can be sexual partners, friends, colleagues, and social partners in general (Danaher, 2019;Danaher and McArthur, 2017;Devlin, 2018;Levy, 2009;Marti, 2010;Nyholm and Smids, 2020;Saetra, 2020b;Wilks, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Loving robots changing love: Towards a practical deficiency-love

Sætra

2022

FRL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robots are today made not only to assist us in menial tasks and routine labour but also provide companionship and love. This has generated much academic and public interest, and people have asked whether robots can love, whether human–robot relationships are possible, and whether humans can develop loving affection for robots. These are all important questions, but I approach the issues from another perspective: can robots made for love change our very understanding of love? By treating love as a cultural and malleable phenomenon, I explore the possibility of it being changed a) to accommodate robots, and b) as a consequence of how robots love us. The first regards the quest to understand what love is and our current tendency to understand phenomena in light of the computer or computational metaphor of human beings. The second involves an examination of how robots are produced to love, and what this form of love might lead to in the wild. Rather than asking if robots can live up to human ideals, I ask if humans will live down – or it might be up – to robot ideals. Using Abraham Maslow’s distinction between being love and deficiency love as an example, I argue that love robots might take us to a place where deficiency love and a growing expectancy of one-sided worship changes the content of love as a cultural phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Robotomorphy and Social Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loving robots changing love: Towards a practical deficiency-love

Sætra

2022

FRL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that humans are key to determining value, as it is how entities are treated and perceived by humans that determine their moral standing ( Gunkel, 2018b ). While this surely opens the door for moral standing for robots that are able to mobilize human social instincts and trigger social responses ( Sætra, 2020 ), it is hard to see how this constitutes a form of non-anthropocentrism. On the contrary, it seems like a clear representation of a system based on the axiological anthropocentrism defined in Axiological Anthropocentrism .…”

Section: The Relational Turn As Neo-anthropocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is easy to see why relationalism has emerged so clearly in the discourse on robot rights, as robots are now designed with a range of exactly those properties that are conducive to social relations ( Sætra, 2020 ). It is also an approach that takes us past what might be labeled biological chauvinism, as traditional theories, both anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric, have often focused on the biological foundation of life and moral standing ( Gellers, 2020 ; Manzotti and Jeschke, 2016 ).…”

Section: The Relational Turn As Neo-anthropocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging the Neo-Anthropocentric Relational Approach to Robot Rights

Sætra

2021

Front. Robot. AI

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When will it make sense to consider robots candidates for moral standing? Major disagreements exist between those who find that question important and those who do not, and also between those united in their willingness to pursue the question. I narrow in on the approach to robot rights called relationalism, and ask: if we provide robots moral standing based on how humans relate to them, are we moving past human chauvinism, or are we merely putting a new dress on it? The background for the article is the clash between those who argue that robot rights are possible and those who see a fight for robot rights as ludicrous, unthinkable, or just outright harmful and disruptive for humans. The latter group are by some branded human chauvinists and anthropocentric, and they are criticized and portrayed as backward, unjust, and ignorant of history. Relationalism, in contrast, purportedly opens the door for considering robot rights and moving past anthropocentrism. However, I argue that relationalism is, quite to the contrary, a form of neo-anthropocentrism that recenters human beings and their unique ontological properties, perceptions, and values. I do so by raising three objections: 1) relationalism centers human values and perspectives, 2) it is indirectly a type of properties-based approach, and 3) edge cases reveal potentially absurd implications in practice.

show abstract

“…For example, should autonomous weapon systems exist (Sparrow, 2007)? Should sex robots, or social robots in general, be further developed Levy, 2009;Saetra, 2020aSaetra, , 2020bSaetra, , 2021bSullins, 2012)? Should scientists explore the use of life-like child robots to treat pedophilia (Danaher, 2019)?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research in AI has Implications for Society: How do we Respond?

Sætra¹,

Fosch‐Villaronga²

2021

Morals & Machines

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers previously unimaginable possibilities, solving problems faster and more creatively than before, representing and inviting hope and change, but also fear and resistance. Unfortunately, while the pace of technology development and application dramatically accelerates, the understanding of its implications does not follow suit. Moreover, while mechanisms to anticipate, control, and steer AI development to prevent adverse consequences seem necessary, the current power dynamics on which society should frame such development is causing much confusion. In this article we ask whether AI advances should be restricted, modified, or adjusted based on their potential legal, ethical, societal consequences. We examine four possible arguments in favor of subjecting scientific activity to stricter ethical and political control and critically analyze them in light of the perspective that science, ethics, and politics should strive for a division of labor and balance of power rather than a conflation. We argue that the domains of science, ethics, and politics should not conflate if we are to retain the ability to adequately assess the adequate course of action in light of AI‘s implications. We do so because such conflation could lead to uncertain and questionable outcomes, such as politicized science or ethics washing, ethics constrained by corporate or scientific interests, insufficient regulation, and political activity due to a misplaced belief in industry self-regulation. As such, we argue that the different functions of science, ethics, and politics must be respected to ensure AI development serves the interests of society.

show abstract

The Parasitic Nature of Social AI: Sharing Minds with the Mindless

Cited by 29 publications

References 64 publications

Loving robots changing love: Towards a practical deficiency-love

Loving robots changing love: Towards a practical deficiency-love

Challenging the Neo-Anthropocentric Relational Approach to Robot Rights

Research in AI has Implications for Society: How do we Respond?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About