Do Humanlike Machines Deserve Human Rights? over at Wired talks about different responses to creations that become more human like. Similar perhaps to the “Flesh Fair” in Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence?

This video clip from Wired Science highlights some interesting research about what sort of relationships might be formed between robots and their human operators, especially in situations where the robot might be put at risk.

Wired pick up on a recent article in Science magazine on the possible implications of becoming overly reliant on robotic child minding systems. See I, Nanny: Robot Babysitters Pose Dilemma | Wired Science from Wired.com

The original article is here but you need to sign in to get it (unless you have access through an institution that subscribes or similar). The reference is:

Science 19 December 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5909, pp. 1800 – 1801
DOI: 10.1126/science.1164582

Perspectives
COMPUTER SCIENCE:
The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics
Noel Sharkey

Interesting post by Kevin Kelly on why he thinks that the transhumanist emphasis on intelligence as the source of technological ‘salvation’ is somewhat misplaced.

See Thinkism.

Following on from the ‘Reborn babies’ post recently here’s an article that notes the continuing development of sociable robotics, or at least robots that can learn to detect visual cues from body language and response to that ‘guess’. See Emotional robots in the spotlight.

See also Greenflame · Computer companions: Are they possible?

Article this week on ‘reborn babies’ – very lifelike dolls – sold to people primarily for collecting but also purchased by people like grieving parents. See ‘Reborn babies’ niche for collectors, grieving parents – Stuff.co.nz. I’m wondering if the revulsion some people feel towards them is part of the ‘uncanny valley’ response to human simulcra noted by Masahiro Mori (see Greenflame · Robots: From tools to partners).

Seems similar to the article I linked to in Greenflame · Virtual babies aim to ease parenting pain back in Feb 2004.

Related links:

• Wired 8.09: Congratulations, It’s A Bot!
• Robot Stories movie/DVD, esp. the “My Robot Baby” story.

A couple more robot links to go with a robot girlfriend link from a day or two back.

The first, Robotic Navi-Bear as Annoying as It Is Cute | Autopia from Wired.com, is the fusion of a talking teddy bear with a navigation system for drivers.

The second, Tartalo the robot is knocking on your door, is about a robot being built in Spain the can navigate around the wider community by recognising people’s homes.

Another step in the direction of virtual companions? See Japan makes robot girlfriend for lonely men

Related links: Greenflame · Computer companions: Are they possible?

Clearing out old web links I’d saved over the past few months I came across this one.

John La Grou’s reflections, microclesia >> AI Jesus, on interacting the AI Jesus over at www.godsbot.org.

I went to hear Prof Maggie Boden speak tonight on Computer companions: Are they possible?. The main thrust of the talk was that computer systems (robotic and simulations) are being created to serve three main types of roles:

1. Physical interaction – such as robots that are used in caregiving or domestic roles: Robo-Monk and Robot nurse will care for Japan’s lonely old people
2. Conversationalists – providing some sort of interactive conversation as part of doing tasks
3. Confidants – related to the above, but able to engage in conversation in some way based upon building up a knowledge of a person over time: such as being able to listen to, analyze and draw upon the stories that have been told it the system previously.

Boden argued that these sort of systems are in various stages of development now (particularly for commercial deployment), and that they raise a whole range of questions that go beyond the purely technical ones of whether or not functional ‘sociable’ robots/system are possible.

1. Could a ‘computer companion’ really do x (where x might be gossip, feel sympathy, express humour)?
2. Could a ‘computer companion’ really be made to appear to do x?
3. Would a human being believe that a ‘computer companion’ could do x?
4. Would we want (3) to happen?
5. How might (3) affect human-human relationships?

These are similar questions to some that have come up in my own research so they weren’t a surprise to me, but given the discussion after the talk they were new to some there.

Update: Radio New Zealand’s Sunday Morning programme had an interview with Margaret Boden at the weekend which covered some of this material. You can listen for a while here (MP3).

Related material – a quick selection of papers, essays and books by Boden that I’ve found interesting:

Boden, Margaret A. 1985. Wonder and Understanding. Zygon 20 (4):391-400.
______. 1987. Artificial intelligence and natural man. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
______, ed. 1990. The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______. 1995. Artificial intelligence and human dignity. In Nature’s Imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision, edited by J. Cornwell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______. 1998. Creativity and Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 103 (1-2):347-356.
______. 2005. Ethical Issues of AI and Biotechnology. In Creative Creatures: Values and Ethical Issues in Theology, Science and Technology, edited by U. Görman, W. B. Drees and H. Meisinger. London: T & T Clark.

Margaret Boden is also speaking on What is creativity? : Wednesday 20 February 5.30pm, at the Gus Fisher Gallery as part of her time at the University of Auckland.

See also: Exploring Our Matrix: Robots in the News