In Why we have an emotional connection to robots, Kate Darling argues that as humans continue to place emotions on robots and treat them as beings with emotions, we could actually cause consequences for our relationships with machines and beyond.
Darling makes an analogy to a dinosaur robot, one with the ability to react when moved and placed upside down, which changed her perception on robots and emotions. Darling explains that because of its human-like reactions, she felt compelled to be compassionate toward the robot, despite knowing exactly what it was made up of. She argues that we are biologically hard wired to project intent and life onto any movement around us that feels autonomous, so we will act as though robots are alive, and have human reactions toward them; Darling also compares this to our relationship with animals. However, if we place too much emphasis on the relationships with robots, for example a soldier relying on a robot it works with, this can be dangerous. Even with this danger, robots have positive impacts as well. For example, robots are valuable in healthcare settings, like in working with autistic or dementia patients, and the use of robots can help anticipate challenges that we may face in the future. Darling closes by posing a question: can robots change people’s empathy? The answer to this question will provide insight into human behavior, social norms and rules around robots in the future.
I found Darling’s argument valid, and it is a topic that many of my cognitive science classes have touched on. One part of the TED talk that I found particularly interesting was the link between empathy and behavior around robots, linking higher empathy people to be less likely to mistreat robots. This makes me wonder, are people more likely to be more empathetic toward certain types of machines than others? For example, do things like having a face, or other life-like structures, create a stronger empathetic response than a machine without these qualities?
Hi Julia, you made this TED talk sound pretty interesting with your critique. I think, per your final question, that people do prefer robots with a face and the reason I say that is because of cinema. Almost all movies that deal with AI use some type of robot that is either humanoid or has a face and I think the reason is because it draws the viewers into having an empathic relationship with the AI and making the movie more enjoyable.
I definitely think that aspects such as machines having a face make a human interact more empathetically to a robot. When robots look human, we start to treat them as if they are human– with emotions and feelings that could be hurt or affected. However, as we know, robots don’t have feelings and are just programmed to act the way they do. I definitely think this can be dangerous when it comes to working with robots, because we might not get the work done that needs to be accomplished in an effort to save the robot’s “feelings.” I recommend watching “Ex Machina” if you haven’t seen it. In it, the main character builds a friendship with a robot who has human features, such as a face. But in the end, viewers see the consequences that come with feeling empathy for the robot. Of course, this is fictional, but it’s interesting to connect it with the points made in the TED talk.
This was such an interesting analysis of the TED Talk, and while I didn’t watch it, I read a case study about the relationships between humans and robots, so a different take on it was really helpful for me to read. I think the example of soldiers relying on robots can cause some serious issues in our future, as we know that technologies are not always perfect. So many times have our phones malfunctioned, computers broke, and more, so it is inevitable that a robot type of machine would have those same features, even if they are working reduce them. I strongly believe that they should not be put into position of risk and authority when that risk is the lives of human beings. And even though we are humans and make mistakes, I am not entirely comfortable putting my life in the hands of a robot. I had also thought about animals and how we show compassion towards them even though we can’t communicate with them. My study had a robotic dog as the robot interaction with humans so I thought the mention of animals was really interesting. I think as beneficial as they can be and are in our society, there is definitely still much research and controversy that needs to be done and established.
You raise a really interesting question about factors that might affect a person’s response to a robot. I definitely think more human-like features will elicit a more empathetic response from people. I also wonder how our connotations to certain animals may influence our reactions to robots that resemble those animals. For example, I would hypothesize that people would be more willing to “kill” a robot spider than a robot dog, because in our culture it is much more acceptable to kill a spider than a dog. I think this is an interesting phenomenon because at the end of the day, the spider and dog robots are composed of the same materials.