Robot Trickery: Is it Ok For Us to Be Fooled?
Maartje M. A. de Graaf’s Exploration of the Ethics of Human-Robot Relations
Maartje M. A. de Graaf of the Department of Communication Science at the University of Twente has published an interesting paper on the ethics of our relationships with social robots. De Graaf explores several topics, but there are two key questions she seeks to answer. The first question is:
Can human lives be enriched if we accept social robots as our trusted, empathetic companions?
De Graaf’s answer to this first question is affirmative. This affirmation leads her to the second question, which becomes:
Is it ok for robot makers to trick us into accepting a mechanical and software-driven apparatus as a “real” companion?
Are Human-Robot Relationships Ethical?
Why is it even problematic to talk about a human developing a sense of companionship with a robot?
As de Graaf outlines in her paper, the notion of humans bonding in a personal way with robots is problematic, because robots don’t really have feelings or “agency.” Something that has agency acts autonomously and from an underlying free will.
A person has agency because his or her actions, thoughts and feelings aren’t pre-programmed. The same can be said for a pet, such as a family dog. People and pets have inherent proclivities that may greatly influence their behavior. But living beings such as people and animals aren’t pre-programmed automatons.
Robots are just that: pre-programmed automatons. The job of the robot designer is essentially to perform a feat of deception. A social robot should be so good at mimicking social behaviors and appropriate responses that a person is tricked into believing the robot is “alive.”
Are Social Robot Designers Deceiving Us?
De Graaf explores this conflict between our desire to befriend social interactive robots and the unseemly ethical conundrum that we’re really being duped. The job of the successful social robot designer is to construct a device that has physical characteristics and mannerisms capable of creating the illusion of a living thing with agency.
Is the robot designer’s job unethical?
De Graaf ultimately takes the view that we shouldn’t be too concerned with the ethics of social robot deception. There’s enough evidence to suggest that the act of accepting social robots as companions can enrich our lives and, especially for people who feel isolated, have positive therapeutic effects.
Most people understand that a robot isn’t really alive and doesn’t exercise intentions. We choose to play along and interact with the robot as if it were a free agent. This is our choice. De Graaf also notes that since we understand a robot’s lack of agency, we know it can never really reciprocate our feelings or experience true empathy. For this reason, social robots can’t become true “friends.” But they can act as enjoyable companions.
De Graaf also notes that there’s a certain amount of deception, or what could be called “performance,” in our relationships with other human beings. We adopt roles when we engage with people. We interact with those around us based on the role they act out towards us. All social interaction involves at least some modest form of illusion.
Suspension of Disbelief: It’s Worth It
At the end of the day, when it comes to social robots, we are willing participants in a fiction that enriches our lives. Just as we practice the suspension of disbelief when we immerse ourselves in a compelling work of fiction, we can choose to believe that social robots are real, worthy companions.
Social robots haven’t entered our world quite yet. But they will soon. Just how much these “creatures” enrich our lives will depend upon their ability to charm us into accepting them for what they are. And what they are, as de Graaf expresses it, is a means to attaining “the good life,” or, to put it another way, a more enjoyable existence.
If you’re building social robots or are involved in the social robotics industry, please consider submitting your stories to this Medium publication. Contact me at amy@hutch.ai for more information.
