Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag April 7, 2020

Categorizing Social Robots with Respect to Dimensions Relevant to Ethical, Social and Legal Implications

Tobias Störzinger, Felix Carros, Anne Wierling, Catrin Misselhorn and Rainer Wieching
From the journal i-com

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to suggest a framework for categorizing social robots with respect to four dimensions relevant to an ethical, legal and social evaluation. We argue that by categorizing them thusly, we can circumvent problematic evaluations of social robots that are often based on overly broad and abstract considerations. Instead of questioning, for example, whether social robots are ethically good or bad in general, we instead propose that different configurations of (and combinations thereof) the suggested dimensions entail different paradigmatic challenges with respect to ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). We therefore encourage practitioners to consider these paradigmatic challenges when designing social robots to find creative design solutions.

References

[1] Michael Anderson and Susan L. Anderson. 2010. Robot be good. Scientific American 303, 4, 72–77. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican1010-72.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Matthias Bäcker. 2018. In Jürgen Kühling and Benedikt Buchner. Datenschutz-Grundverordnung/BDSG. Kommentar (2. Auflage). C. H. Beck, München; AA Franck. In Peter Gola. 2018. Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (2. Auflage). Art. 13, Rn. 37.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Deborah R. Billings, Kristin E. Schaefer, Jessie Y. C. Chen, and Peter A. Hancock. 2012. Human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Digital Library. ACM, New York, NY, 109. DOI: 10.1145/2157689.2157709.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Cynthia L. Breazeal. 2004. Designing sociable robots. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2376.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Roboter für Assistenzfunktionen: Interaktionsstrategien. Retrieved from https://​www.technik-zum-menschen-bringen.de​/​foerderung/​bekanntmachungen/​roboter-fuer-assistenzfunktionen-interaktionsstrategien.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Steffen Burk, Martin Hennig, Benjamin Heurich, Tatiana Klepikova, Miriam Piegsa, Manuela Sixt, and Kai E. Trost. Privatheit in der digitalen Gesellschaft. Dissertation. 116.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Felix Carros. 2019. Roboter in der Pflege, ein Schreckgespenst? In Mensch und Computer 2019 - Workshopband.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Carsten Dochow. 2019. Telemedizin und Datenschutz. MedR 37, 8, 636–648. DOI: 10.1007/s00350-019-5295-7.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Thomas Zerdick. 2018. In Eugen Ehmann and Martin Selmayr, Eds. DS-GVO. Datenschutz-Grundverordnung: Kommentar Art. 2 II lit. c, Rn. 10. (2. Auflage). Beck’sche Kurz-Kommentare. C. H. Beck; LexisNexis, München, Wien.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Mats Eriksson, Veli-Pekka Niitamo, and Seija Kulkki. 2005. State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea.Search in Google Scholar

[11] D. Feil-Seifer and M. J. Mataric. 2005. Socially Assistive Robotics. In 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. IEEE, 465–468. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Luciano Floridi and J. W. Sanders. 2004. On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines 14, 3, 349–379. DOI: 10.1023/b:mind.0000035461.63578.9d.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Ann Gallagher, Dagfinn Nåden, and Dag Karterud. 2016. Robots in elder care: Some ethical questions. Nursing ethics, 23(4), 369–371. DOI: 10.1177/0969733016647297.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Dirk Heckmann and Anne Paschke. 2017. Datenschutzrechtliche Aspekte von Big Data-Analysen im Gesundheitswesen. In Björn Bergh, Ed. Big Data und E-Health, DatenDebatten, Band 2. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, 69–84.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Kathrin Janowski, Hannes Ritschel, Birgit Lugrin, and Elisabeth André. 2018. Sozial interagierende Roboter in der Pflege. In Oliver Bendel, Ed. Pflegeroboter, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 63–87. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_4.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Christian Katzenmeier. 2019. Big Data, E-Health, M-Health, KI und Robotik in der Medizin. MedR 37, 4, 259–271. DOI: 10.1007/s00350-019-5180-4.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Christoph Kehl. 2018. Robotik und assistive Neurotechnologien in der Pflege–gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag, Berlin.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Jürgen Kühling. 2019. Datenschutz im Gesundheitswesen. MedR 37, 8, 611–622. DOI: 10.1007/s00350-019-5291-y.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Jasmin Lehmann, Felix Carros, David Unbehaun, Rainer Wieching, and Jens Lüssem. 2019. Einsatzfelder der sozialen Robotik in der Pflege. In Nicolas Krämer and Christian Stoffers, Eds. Digitale Transformation im Krankenhaus. Thesen, Potenziale, Anwendungen. Mediengruppe Oberfranken, Kulmbach, 88–113.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, Markus Klann, and Volker Wulf. 2006. End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development. Springer, 1–8.10.1007/1-4020-5386-XSearch in Google Scholar

[21] Gesa Lindemann. 2016. Social interaction with robots: three questions. AI & Soc 31, 4, 573–575. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-015-0633-4.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Wing-Yue G. Louie, Derek McColl, and Goldie Nejat. 2014. Acceptance and Attitudes Toward a Human-like Socially Assistive Robot by Older Adults. Assistive technology: the official journal of RESNA 26(3), 140–150. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2013.869703.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Arne Manzeschke. 2015. MEESTAR–ein Modell angewandter Ethik im Bereich assistiver Technologien. In Technisierung des Alters–Beitrag zu einem guten Leben, 263–283.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Victoria McGeer. 2007. The regulative dimension of folk psychology. In Folk psychology re-assessed. Springer, 137–156.10.1007/978-1-4020-5558-4_8Search in Google Scholar

[25] Victoria McGeer. 2015. Mind-making practices: the social infrastructure of self-knowing agency and responsibility. Philosophical Explorations 18(2), 259–281. DOI: 10.1080/13869795.2015.1032331.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Catrin Misselhorn. 2013. Robots as moral agents. In Frank Rövekamp and Friederike Bosse, Eds. Ethics in science and society: German and Japanese views. Iudicium, München, 30–42.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Catrin Misselhorn. 2018. Maschinen mit Moral? Grundfragen der Maschinenethik. Reclams Universal-Bibliothek, 19583. Reclam, Stuttgart.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Catrin Misselhorn. 2019. Digitale Rechtssubjekte, Handlungsfähigkeit und Verantwortung aus philosophischer Sicht. Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Catrin Misselhorn. 2020. Artificial systems with moral capacities? A research design and its implementation in a geriatric care system. Artificial Intelligence 278, 103179. DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2019.103179.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Catrin Misselhorn. 2020. Is empathy with robots morally relevant? In C. Misselhorn et al., Eds. Emotional machines – Perspectives from affective computing and emotional human-machine interaction. Springer, Wiesbaden, to appear.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Sven Nyholm and Lily E. Frank. 2019. It Loves Me, It Loves Me Not. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 23(3), 402–424. DOI: 10.5840/techne2019122110.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Linda Onnasch, Xenia Maier, and Thomas Jürgensohn. 2016. Mensch-Roboter-Interaktion-Eine Taxonomie für alle Anwendungsfälle. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Dortmund.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Amit K. Pandey and Rodolphe Gelin. 2018. A mass-produced sociable humanoid robot: pepper: the first machine of its kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 25, 3, 40–48.10.1109/MRA.2018.2833157Search in Google Scholar

[34] Jennifer A. Parks. 2010. Lifting the Burden of Women’s Care Work: Should Robots Replace the “Human Touch”? Hypatia 25(1), 100–120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01086.x.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Nina Riether, Frank Hegel, Britta Wrede, and Gernot Horstmann. 2012. Social facilitation with social robots? In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACMIEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Digital Library. ACM, New York, NY, 41. DOI: 10.1145/2157689.2157697.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Giuseppe Riva and Eleonora Riva. 2019. CARESSES: The World’s First Culturally Sensitive Robots for Elderly Care. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 22(6), 430.10.1089/cyber.2019.29155.ceuSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Tracy L. Sanders, Tarita Wixon, K. E. Schafer, Jessie Y. C. Chen, and P. A. Hancock. 2014. The influence of modality and transparency on trust in human-robot interaction. In 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA). IEEE, 156–159. DOI: 10.1109/CogSIMA.2014.6816556.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Stefan Schleipfer. 2015. Datenschutzkonformer Umgang mit Nutzungsprofile: Sind IP-Adressen, Cookies und Fingerprints die entscheidenden Details beim Webtracking? Zeitschrift für Datenschutz 9, 399.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Johanna Seibt. 2017. Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for Robots and Humans. In Raul Hakli and Johanna Seibt, Eds. Sociality and Normativity for Robots. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 11–39. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_2.Search in Google Scholar

[40] T. Shibata, K. Ohkawa, and K. Tanie. 1996. Spontaneous behavior of robots for cooperation. Emotionally intelligent robot system. In Proceedings 1996 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, Piscataway, 2426–2431. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.1996.506527.Search in Google Scholar

[41] T. Smithers. 1997. Autonomy in robots and other agents. Brain and cognition 34, 1, 88–106. DOI: 10.1006/brcg.1997.0908.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Samuel Strauss. 2018. Dashcam und Datenschutz. Eine kritische Gegenueberstellung von alter und neuer Rechtslage. NZV-Neue Zeitschrift fuer Verkehrsrecht 31, 12.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Jörg Strübing. 2004. Grounded Theory. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.10.1007/978-3-322-95015-4Search in Google Scholar

[44] Kristen Stubbs, Pamela J. Hinds, and David Wettergreen. 2007. Autonomy and Common Ground in Human-Robot Interaction: A Field Study. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22, 2, 42–50. DOI: 10.1109/MIS.2007.21.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Gunther Teubner. 2019. Digitale Rechtssubjekte?: Haftung für das Handeln autonomer Softwareagenten. Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional.Search in Google Scholar

[46] David Unbehaun, Konstantin Aal, Felix Carros, Rainer Wieching, and Volker Wulf, Eds. 2019. Creative and Cognitive Activities in Social Assistive Robots and Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Field Study with Pepper. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).Search in Google Scholar

[47] Wendell Wallach. 2010. Moral machines. Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Thilo Weichert. 2019. Praktische Anwendungsprobleme im Gesundheitsdatenschutz. MedR 37, 8, 622–625. DOI: 10.1007/s00350-019-5292-x.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Katharina Weitz, Dominik Schiller, Ruben Schlagowski, Tobias Huber, and Elisabeth André. 2019. Do you trust me?. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents – IVA ’19. ACM Press, New York, USA, 7–9. DOI: 10.1145/3308532.3329441.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Volker Wulf, Claudia Müller, Volkmar Pipek, David Randall, Markus Rohde, and Gunnar Stevens. 2015. Practice-Based Computing: Empirically Grounded Conceptualizations Derived from Design Case Studies. In Volker Wulf, Kjeld Schmidt and David Randall, Eds. Designing socially embedded technologies in the real-world. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London, 111–150. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6720-4_7.Search in Google Scholar

[51] Volker Wulf, Markus Rohde, Volkmar Pipek, and Gunnar Stevens. 2011. Engaging with practices. In CSCW ’11. Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 505. DOI: 10.1145/1958824.1958902.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Jakub Złotowski, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2017. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 100, 48–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.008.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-04-07
Published in Print: 2020-04-28

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow