Abstract
We provide a conceptual framework to assess the technical readiness of sex robots for intimate relationships with their human users. We build on an existing framework of simulation of sociality by social robots, and extend it through the lens of the sense–think–act paradigm as it is used in robotics research. Although simulation of sociality by a sex robot involves presenting a coherent personality, considering technical capability requires viewing it as an interactive multi-device, multicomponent system. Drawing from two illustrative consumer technology examples (Gatebox and Realbotix products), we identify access and actuation as key additional elements applicable to the interpretation of sex robots through the existing framework of simulation of sociality. What information is accessed and how it is then used to inform the system’s actions depends on the production and maintenance constraints of the system, and may be incidentally or intentionally obscure to a human observer. We relate this technical consideration to a psychological concept of intimacy as mutual self-disclosure and vulnerability over time. Our extension of existing work on simulation of social performance by a robot highlights how the technical and organizational constraints prevent mutual disclosure and vulnerability. The user discloses themselves to the hardware/software system—and through the system, to its creators, operators, and data-processing third parties—but neither the system nor the implicated organizations disclose their inner workings to the user. Interrogating a particular system’s capacity to simulate intimacy requires not only observing the immediate and apparent action but also considering the issues of access and actuation as they inform the possibility of mutual disclosure and vulnerability over time.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agre, P. (1997). Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. In Social science, technical systems and cooperative work: Beyond the great divide. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377.
Breazeal, C. (2003). Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 167–175.
Canepari, Z., Cooper, D., Cott, E. (2017). The uncanny lover [Video File]. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000003731634/the-uncanny-lover.html
Cetina, K. K., Schatzki, T. R., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2005). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London, UK: Routledge.
Engadget. (2018). Sex Robot hands-on at CES 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9KrOhJ5NM
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): A randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166.
Gatebox Lab. (2016, December 13). Gatebox - Virtual Home Robot [PV]_english. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcKaNqfykg
Gregg, M. (2011). Work’s intimacy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
Hoel, A. S., & Van der Tuin, I. (2013). The ontological force of technicity: Reading Cassirer and Simondon diffractively. Philosophy and Technology, 26(2), 187–202.
Kahn, P. H., Jr., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Shen, S., Gary, H. E., & Ruckert, J. H. (2015, March). Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot?: Psychological intimacy in hri. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 173–180). ACM.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2011). Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of human life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahn, P. H., Jr., Gary, H. E., & Shen, S. (2013). Children’s social relationship with current and near-future robots. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12011
Kahn, P. H., Jr., Ishiguro, H., Friedman, B., Kanda, T., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., & Miller, J. (2007). What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 8(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.04kah
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238.
LINE_DEV. (2017, Oct 12). Gatebox: How we got here and where we’re going -English version- [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhn20nIFBQ0
Mankins, J. C. (1995). Technology readiness levels [White paper]. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from University of Colorado: https://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/TECHNOLOGYREADINESSLEVELS.pdf
Massumi, B. (1987). Realer than real: The simulacrum according to Deleuze and Guattari. Copyright, 1, 90–97.
Nevejans, N. (2016). European civil law rules in robotics. European Union. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU(2016)571379_EN.pdf
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handbook of Personal Relationships, 24(3), 367–389.
Scheutz, M., & Arnold, T. (2016, March). Are we ready for sex robots? In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 351–358). IEEE Press.
Scheutz, M., & Arnold, T. (2017). Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: Examining empirical results and exploring ethical ramifications. Unpublished manuscript.
Seibt, J. (2017). Towards an ontology of simulated social interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for robots and humans. In R. Hakli & J. Seibt (Eds.), Sociality and normativity for robots: Philosophical inquiries into human-robot interactions (pp. 11–39). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Sengers, P. (1998). Anti-boxology: agent design in cultural context (No. CMU-CS-98-151). CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.
Siegel, M. (2003, June). The sense-think-act paradigm revisited. In 1st International Workshop on Robotic Sensing, 2003. ROSE’03 (p. 5). IEEE.
Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 7.
Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 398–409.
Turkle, S. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Mit Press.
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45.
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Winner, L. (2009). Do artifacts have politics? In Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 251–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yeoman, I., & Mars, M. (2012). Robots, men and sex tourism. Futures, 44(4), 365–371.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kuksenok, K., Santagati, S. (2019). Readable as Intimate: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Empirical Interrogation of Software Implementations of Intimacy. In: Zhou, Y., Fischer, M.H. (eds) AI Love You. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19734-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19733-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19734-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)