Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Responsible Domestic Robotics: Exploring Ethical Implications of Robots in the Home Journal: Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Manuscript ID JICES-12-2018-0096.R1 Manuscript Type: Journal Paper Keywords: Robotics, Trust, Privacy, Social responsibility, Human-comp interaction Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Page 1 of 36 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 1 2 3 4 5 Responsible Domestic Robotics 6 7 Exploring Ethical Implications of Robots in the Home 8 9 Dr Lachlan D. Urquhart 10 11 Lecturer in Technology Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh; Visiting Research Fellow, Horizon 12 Digital Economy Research Institute, Department of Computer Science, University of Nottingham. 13 14 Dominic Reedman-Flint 15 16 PhD Student, Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training, University of Nottingham, Department of Computer 17 Science. 18 19 20 Natalie Leesakul 21 22 PhD Student, Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training, University of Nottingham, Department of Computer 23 Science. 24 25 26 27 Abstract: 28 29 Purpose: The vision of robotics in the home promises increased convenience, comfort, 30 companionship, and greater security for users. The robot industry risks causing harm to 31 32 users, being rejected by society at large, or being regulated in overly prescriptive ways if 33 robots are not developed in a socially responsible manner. The purpose of this paper is to 34 explore some of the challenges and requirements for designing responsible domestic 35 robots. 36 37 38 Design/methodology/approach: The paper examines definitions of robotics and the 39 current commercial state of the art. In particular it considers the emerging technological 40 trends, such as smart homes, that are already embedding computational agents in the fabric 41 42 of everyday life. The paper then explores the role of values in design, aligning with human 43 computer interaction and considers the importance of the home as a deployment setting for 44 robots. The paper examines what responsibility in robotics means and draws lessons from 45 46 past home information technologies. 47 48 An exploratory pilot survey was conducted to understand user concerns about different 49 aspects of domestic robots such as form, privacy and trust. The paper provides these 50 findings, married with literature analysis from across technology law, computer ethics and 51 52 computer science. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Page 2 of 36 1 2 3 Findings: By drawing together both empirical observations and conceptual analysis, this 4 5 paper concludes that user centric design is needed to create responsible domestic robotics 6 in the future. 7 8 9 10 Originality/value: This multidisciplinary paper provides conceptual and empirical 11 12 research from different domains to unpack the challenges of designing responsible 13 domestic robotics. 14 15 Keywords: Domestic Robotics, Cyber-Physical Systems, Internet of Things, 16 Responsibility, Regulation/Governance, Law, Trust. 17 18 19 Paper Type: Research Paper (Conceptual; Literature Review and Empirical Findings) 20 21 1. Introduction: The Robots are Coming 22 23 The vision of robotics in the home promise increased convenience, comfort, 24 companionship, and greater security for users. However, the reality, and impact on users, 25 26 may not always meet this vision. Fears of robot uprisings are peppered throughout decades 27 of science fiction literature and film (Higbie, 2013). However, visions of technological 28 futures often say more about the period they were written in, than actually forecasting what 29 30 futures might emerge (Reeves, 2012), as we have seen with computer science research into 31 ‘ubicomp’ (Bell and Dourish, 2006). Whilst popular science and cultural visions of robots 32 may not have fully emerged, computational agents have most definitely left the lab and 33 34 entered daily life in a variety of forms. The Internet of Things (IoT) is incrementally 35 making homes smarter by embedding networked, ambient technologies with varying 36 degrees of autonomy into the physical and social fabric of domestic life. These devices can 37 be for security (smart CCTV and locks), comfort (smart bulbs and thermostats) and 38 39 entertainment (conversational agents in smart speakers). These artefacts may not all be 40 ‘robots’ in the popular sense of the word, but they are restructuring interactions, social 41 order and relationships in the home. As domestic service robot technologies advance and 42 43 become more commercially accessible, the smart home will have already changed the 44 domestic setting and laid the groundwork for robots to assimilate. Accordingly, they need 45 to learn from mistakes being made with smart homes, including being designed in more 46 47 user centric ways. It is important to understand user concerns and respond to these 48 accordingly, to create a more sustainable domestic robot future. 49 50 51 Our paper structure firstly explores changing definitions of domestic robots before 52 considering human computer interaction perspectives on value sensitive, user centric and 53 contextually aware design in the home. Secondly, we unpack the nature of responsibility, 54 55 arguing roboticists need to understand and respond to user concerns. This often does not 56 occur currently, creating technologies unfit for purpose and disruptive to the social order 57 58 2 59 60 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Page 3 of 36 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 1 2 3 of the home. We conclude by presenting user concerns from our small-scale exploratory 4 5 survey, focusing particularly on trust, privacy and form of robots as key hurdles for creating 6 responsible domestic robotics. 7 8 9 10 2. Definitions 11 12 Standards are a good place to start navigating a definition of domestic robots, as they can 13 show what multiple stakeholder consensus is around a topic. The International Federation 14 of Robotics/ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe were influential in 15 16 classifying robots, culminating in the ISO standard 8373:2012 on Robots and Robotic 17 devices. This standard differentiates between, among others, industrial, mobile, service, 18 personal service and professional service robots. According to them, a robot is “an actuated 19 20 mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy, moving within 21 its environment, to perform intended tasks. Autonomy in this context means the ability to 22 perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing, without human intervention” 23 24 (ISO 8373, s2.08). We focus on ‘service robots,’ which are ‘robot[s] that perform useful 25 tasks for humans or equipment excluding industrial automation applications’ (ISO 8373, 26 s2.10) and particularly the sub category of ‘personal service robots’; “service robots for 27 28 personal use…used for a non-commercial task, usually by lay persons… (i.e.) domestic 29 servant robot, automated wheelchair, personal mobility assist robot, and pet exercising 30 robot” (ISO 8373, s2.11). As we can see, these definitions foreground the materiality of 31 32 the artefact (i.e. being able to actuate physically), the varying degrees of autonomy they 33 possess to shape the environment, the relationship of utility to humans, and the split 34 between industrial and personal. 35 36 If we look more widely, by turning to academic sources we see robots framed slightly 37 38 differently. For Mataric, (2007, p. 2) "a robot is an autonomous system which exists in the 39 physical world, can sense its environment, and can act on it to achieve some goals". Bryson 40 and Winfield state robots are “artefacts that sense and act in the physical world in real 41 42 time” and they state a smartphone counts as a robot as it can sense when its falling or 43 orientation changes (Bryson and Winfield, 2017, p117). Both definitions encapsulate the 44 ability to act in the physical world, but don’t necessarily prescribe the robots as being 45 46 physical themselves. In providing a more design orientated definition for domestic robots, 47 Bartneck and Forlizzi (2004, p. 2) highlight the interactional aspects, stating “a domestic 48 robot is an autonomous or semi-autonomous robot that interacts and communicates with 49 50 humans by following the behavioural norms expected by the people with whom the robot 51 is intended to interact’’. This definition foregrounds the interactional aspect, and 52 particularly to what extent robots fit into pre-existing norms and contexts. All of the above 53 54 perspectives feature in EU legal discussions around civil liability for robots, which 55 recommend defining ‘smart robots’ by focusing on the attributes of: 56 57 58 3 59 60 Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society Page 4 of 36 1 2 3 " – the capacity to acquire autonomy through sensors and/or by exchanging data with its 4 5 environment (inter-connectivity) and the analysis of those data; 6 7 – the capacity to learn through experience and interaction; 8 9 – the form of the robot’s physical support; 10 11 – the capacity to adapt its behaviour and actions to the environment." 12 (European Parliament, 2017, p. 18) 13 14 15 However, in defining robots, neatly separating them from interactive AI becomes a 16 challenge e.g. human-agent collectives, IBM Watson, Google Duplex, DeepMind AlphaGo 17 etc. Whilst some definitions above focus on the physicality of robots, they do not exclude 18 19 non-physical, more ethereal robots that actuate in the real world. Given the current trend 20 towards smart homes with integration of more ethereal devices not providing physical 21 interactions, but cognitive support, there is a case for considering interactive AI too.