Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 75–82 | Cite as

The human relationship in the ethics of robotics: a call to Martin Buber’s I and Thou

  • Kathleen RichardsonEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Artificially Intelligent robotic technologies increasingly reflect a language of interaction and relationship and this vocabulary is part and parcel of the meanings now attached to machines. No longer are they inert, but interconnected, responsive and engaging. As machines become more sophisticated, they are predicted to be a “direct object” of an interaction for a human, but what kinds of human would that give rise to? Before robots, animals played the role of the relational other, what can stories of feral children tell us about what it means to be human? What of ‘relationship’ do AI and robotic scientists draw on to generate ideas about their relational others? I will address these questions by reference to the work of Martin Buber in I and Thou.

Keywords

Dialogical phenomenology Human-robot interaction Human relationship Feral children Attachment theory Ethics of care Gendered attachment. 

References

  1. Ainsworth, M.D.S., 1978. The Bowlby-Ainsworth attachment theory. Behav Brain Sci, 1(03):436–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen S (2004) The essential difference. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen S, Bolton P, Wheelwright S, Scahill V, Short L, Mead G, Smith A (1998) Autism occurs more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Autism 2(3):296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen S, Ashwin E, Ashwin C, Tavassoli T, Chakrabarti B, (2009). Talent in Autism: hyper-systemizing, hyper-attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity. Philos Trans 364(1522):1377–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breazeal CL (2004). Designing sociable robots. MIT press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks R Flesh and machines: how robots will change us. 2002. Patheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Buber M (1937) I and Thou (trans. by R. Gregor Smith). Clark, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Candland DK (1995). Feral children and clever animals: reflections on human nature. Oxford University Press on Demand, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Čapek K (2004) RUR (Rossum’s universal robots). Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Crittenden PM, Ainsworth MDS (1989) Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In: Cicchetti D, Carlson V (eds) Child maltreatment: theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 432–463Google Scholar
  11. Darling K (2012) Extending legal rights to social robots, We Robot Conference, University of Miami, April 2012Google Scholar
  12. Dautenhahn, K., 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans 362(1480):679–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennis W (1941) The significance of feral man. Am J Psychol 54(3):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dykas MJ, Cassidy J (2013) The first bonding experience: the basics of infant caregiver attachment. In: Hazan C, Campa MI (eds) Human Bonding: the science of affectional ties. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Enfield NJ, Levinson SC (2006). Introduction: human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Symposium 134 2006, Berg, Oxford, 1–35Google Scholar
  16. Eurobarometer S (2012) 382 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Robots’Google Scholar
  17. Gilligan C, 1982. In a different voice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunkel DJ (2014) A vindication of the rights of machines. Philos Technol 27(1):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haraway DJ (1991) Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Haraway DJ (2003) The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Harlow HF, Zimmerman RR (1959) Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science 130(3373):421–432Google Scholar
  22. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D (2015) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci 10(2):227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurzweil R, 2000. The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour B, 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Leite I, Pereira A, Mascarenhas S, Martinho C, Prada R, Paiva A (2013) The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(3):250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Medford N, Sierra M, Baker D, David AS (2005) Understanding and treating depersonalisation disorder. Adv Psychiatr Treat 11(2):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mol A (2002) The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newton M (2002) Savage boys and wild girls: a history of feral children. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Parks JA (2010) Lifting the Burden of Women’s Care Work: Should Robots Replace the “Human Touch”? Hypatia 25(1):100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson K, (2010) Disabling as mimesis and alterity: making humanoid robots at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Etnofoor 22(1):75–90Google Scholar
  31. Richardson K (2015) An anthropology of robots and AI: annihilation anxiety and machines. Routledge, Abingdon-on-ThamesGoogle Scholar
  32. Richardson K (2016) Sex robot matters: slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35(2):46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romaine S (1998) Communicating gender. Psychology Press, HoveCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rousseau J (2000) Discourse on the origin of inequality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandry E (2015) Robots and communication. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Stud 11(2):161–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shattuck R, Candland DK (1994) The forbidden experiment: the story of the wild boy of Aveyron, Kodansha International, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherry T (1984) The second self: computers and the human spirit. Granada, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Shirahase S (2000) Women’s increased higher education and the declining fertility rate in Japan. Rev Popul Soc Policy 9:47–63.Google Scholar
  41. Sprehe JT (1961) Feral man and the social animal. Am Cathol Sociol Rev, pp. 161–167Google Scholar
  42. Stawarska B (2009) Between you and I: dialogical phenomenology. Ohio University Press, AthensCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strathern M (1988) The gender of the gift: problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Univ of California Press, CaliforniaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warwick K (2004) I, cyborg. University of Illinois Press, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  45. Zingg RM (1940) Feral man and extreme cases of isolation. Am J Psychol 53(4):487–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Senior Research Fellow Ethics of Robotics, Centre for Computing and Social ResponsibilityDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations