1. John P. Sullins (2006) “When is a Robot a Moral Agent?”
http://www.i-r-i-e.net/inhalt/006/006_Sullins.pdf(accessed on 14 March, 2011)
Usually, human being is treated as the moral agent. They have the responsibility for making moral judgments and taking action that comport with morality. How about a robot? In this article, John presents that a robot can be seen as a real moral agent under certain circumstances. Three requirements of robotic moral agency are listed by John. A robot must achieve all of these criteria so that it will have moral rights as a person.
The first requirement is a robot has significantly autonomous from any programmers, operators and users of the machine. It means that the robot is not control by any other agent. If the robot does have this level of autonomy, it has a practical independent agency.
The second is about the ability of machine to act “intentionally”. If a complicated interaction robot’s programming cause the robot to well or harm, and the actions are seemingly deliberate and calculated, than the machine can be seen as a moral agent.
Finally, robot moral agency requires the robot to have the responsibility to some other moral agent. Robot should have their own belief and then we can say the machine is a moral agent.
2. Dautenhahn, Kerstin. (2007) “Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2346526/ (accessed on 14 March 2011)
The author points out that the social intelligence is important to a robot. This skill is necessary to robots because they need to interact and collaborate with other robots or human being. In this essay, two aspects will be discussed:
The first part is about the dimensions of human-robot interaction (HRI), which is a very new research field. It will discuss the requirements on social skills for robots and introduce the conceptual space of HRI. In order to further explain these concepts, a case study of robot companions in the home would be discussed. Moreover, the HRI in the context of Aurora project will be surveyed. Aurora project is aim to investigate the usage of robotic playmates in autism therapy.
As for the second part, it is the further discussion about Aurora project. According to the author, robots are discussed as educational or therapeutic toys for children with autism. Investigators believe that play therapy is an important part in increasing quality of life. So Aurora project is trying to engage children in therapeutically relevant playful interactions with a robot and also using robot as mediator to the social environment.
3) Candace L. Sidner, Christopher Lee, Cory D. Kidd, Neal Lesh and Charles Rich. (2005) “Explorations in engagement for humans and robot”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TYF-4G65VCR-1-1&_cdi=5617&_user=10&_pii=S0004370205000512&_origin=gateway&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2005&_sk=998339998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkzV&md5=74bd36038c27c8800d5feb0ee91bde1e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2011)
This essay is aim to explore the concept of engagement, which is a process by which an individual start, maintain and end their perceived connection to one another. During the face-to-face interaction, individuals use gesture and conversations to communicate with others.
The writers studied human-human interaction and then apply the result to human-robot interaction. Firstly, the paper reports the aspect of engagement among human in order to know the effect of tracking faces during an interaction. Also, they have report on a humanoid robot that participates in conversational, collaborative interactions with engagement gesture. The robot shows its ability of tracking its human partner’s face and participating in a collaborative demonstration of invention.
The article presents a finding of an experiment that human as a participant who interacted with a robot when it either performed or did not perform engagement gestures. From the human-robot experiment, the result is that people become engaged with robots. They direct their attention to the robot more often in interactions where engagement gestures are present. What’s more, they find interactions more appropriate when engagement gestures are present than when they are not. The authors also believe that the engagement gestural ability of robot become more sophisticated in the future. And the interaction between human and robot would be smoother and it is possible to include robots into our daily life.
4) Sebastian Thrun (2004) “Towards a framework for Human-Robot Interaction”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.92.7300&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 16 March 2011)
Nowadays, the field of robotic is changing at an unprecedented pace. At present, robot just operates in industry setting, where they provide service such as assembly and transportation. Writer state that robot can serve us directly in our home or workplace. This article is going to provide a comprehensive description of the rich and vibrant field of robotics.
In this article, a point stated by writer is that the biggest different between robots and other physical devices, such as household appliances is autonomy. The field of robotics has paid much effort to empower the robots with an ability to make their own decision in a wide range of situation. In other words, autonomy is an ability to accommodate variations in the environment. Once a robot has the autonomous, it can help them to rich the interaction with human. That means robot can be more sociable.
On the other hand, the writer said that there are three different kinds of robots which are industrial robot, professional service robot and personal service robot. All the robots require different autonomy and interfaces.
In the last part of the article, six open questions pertaining to modern-day human robot interaction are articulated.
5) Sloman, Aron. (1998) “Architectural requirements for human-like agents both natural and artificial (What sorts of machines can love?)”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.46.9493&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 16 March 2011)
In 1998, the author had a talk on whether machine can love. This paper is the expand version of the talk on love and attempts to analyze the machine can have emotions.
Actually, many people are afraid or disturbed by the idea that robots or software agent may have thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions or the experience the world as we do. Those people can be categorized into two groups: one is doubter, anther one is fearer. People become doubters because they see the limitation of exiting computer-based machine and cannot imagine any ways to deal with those limitations. Because of the huge gap between machines developed so far and what animals can do, some people think the gap can never be bridged. As for fearer, they reject the idea as they may worry machine will take the control of human someday.
Furthermore, Author has presented that there are three layers of emotions which is the requirement for an agent to achieve.
In addition, some analyze of poets and playwrights have been done which involve an implicit commitment to the hypothesis that minds are information processing engines. Besides loving, many other familiar states and processes such as seeing, deciding, wondering, enjoying, and to list just a few, all these involve different sorts of information processing. By analyzing such processes, we can know what is known about animal brain and comparing this with what is being learnt from work on artificial minds in artificial intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment