Abstract
HRI researchers have made major strides in developing robotic architectures that are capable of reading a limited set of social cues and producing behaviors that enhance their likeability and feeling of comfort amongst humans. However, the cues in these models are fairly direct and the interactions largely dyadic. To capture the normative qualities of interaction more robustly, we propose “consent” as a distinct, critical area for HRI research. Convening important insights in existing HRI work around topics like touch, proxemics, gaze, and moral norms, the notion of consent reveals key expectations that can shape how a robot acts in social spaces. Consent need not be limited to just an explicit permission given in ethically charged or normatively risky scenarios. Instead, it is a richer notion, one that covers even implicit acquiescence in scenarios that otherwise seem normatively neutral. By sorting various kinds of consent through social and legal doctrine, we delineate empirical and technical questions to meet consent challenges faced in major application domains and robotic roles. Attention to consent could show, for example, how extraordinary, norm-violating actions can be justified by agents and accepted by those around them. We argue that operationalizing ideas from legal scholarship can better guide how robotic systems might cultivate and sustain proper forms of consent.
- 1891. O’brien v. Cunard Steam Ship Co. In 28 N.E. 266.Google Scholar
- 1980. Commonwealth v. Appleby. In 402 N.E.2d 1051. Mass: Supreme Judicial Court.Google Scholar
- 2012. Commonwealth v. Carey. In 463 Mass. 378. Mass: Supreme Judicial Court.Google Scholar
- Henny Admoni and Brian Scassellati. 2017. Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction: A review. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 6, 1 (2017), 25--63. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2017. Beyond moral dilemmas: Exploring the ethical landscape in hri. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’17). IEEE, 445--452. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2018a. Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perception of a robot’s social qualities? In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2018b. Observing robot touch in context: How does touch and attitude affect perceptions of a robot’s social qualities? In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 352--360. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter M. Asaro. 2007. Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation (ICRA'07). http://www.peterasaro.org/writing/ASARO%20Legal%20Perspective.pdf.Google Scholar
- Siddhartha Banerjee and Sonia Chernova. 2017. Temporal models for robot classification of human interruptibility. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1350--1359. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cynthia Breazeal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Takayuki Kanda. 2016. Social robotics. In Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer, 1935--1972.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gordon Briggs and Matthias Scheutz. 2016. The pragmatic social robot: Toward socially-sensitive utterance generation in human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium Series on Artificial Intelligence for Human-Robot Interaction (AI-HRI’16). 12--15.Google Scholar
- Gordon Michael Briggs and Matthias Scheutz. 2013. A hybrid architectural approach to understanding and appropriately generating indirect speech acts. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’13). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryan Calo. 2010. Robots and privacy. In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney (eds.).Google Scholar
- Tiffany L. Chen, Chih-Hung Aaron King, Andrea L. Thomaz, and Charles C. Kemp. 2014. An investigation of responses to robot-initiated touch in a nursing context. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 1 (2014), 141--161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kate Darling. 2016. Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In Robot Law, M. Froomkin, R. Calo, and I. Kerr (Eds.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
- Maartje M. A. de Graaf. 2016. An ethical evaluation of human--robot relationships. Int. Soc. Robot. 8, 4 (2016), 589--598.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leah Fessler. 2018. Amazon’s Alexa is now a feminist, and she’s sorry if that upsets you. Retrieved from https://qz.com/work/1180607/amazons-alexa-is-now-a-feminist-and-shes-sorry-if-that-upsets-you/.Google Scholar
- Stephen M. Fiore, Travis J. Wiltshire, Emilio J. C. Lobato, Florian G. Jentsch, Wesley H. Huang, and Benjamin Axelrod. 2013. Toward understanding social cues and signals in human--robot interaction: Effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Front. Psychol. 4 (2013), 859.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lily Frank and Sven Nyholm. 2017. Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable? Artif. Intell. Law 25, 3 (2017), 305--323. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Gardner. 2015. The many faces of the reasonable person. Law Quart. Rev. 131, Oct. (Oct. 2015).Google Scholar
- Sinziana Gutiu. 2012. Sex robots and roboticization of consent. In Proceedings of the We Robot 2012 Conference, Vol. 15. 2013.Google Scholar
- Chris Haynes, Michael Luck, Peter McBurney, Samhar Mahmoud, Tomáš Vítek, and Simon Miles. 2017. Engineering the emergence of norms: A review. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 32 (2017), e18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guy Hoffman, Jodi Forlizzi, Shahar Ayal, Aaron Steinfeld, John Antanitis, Guy Hochman, Eric Hochendoner, and Justin Finkenaur. 2015. Robot presence and human honesty: Experimental evidence. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 181--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heidi M. Hurd. 1996. The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory 2, 2 (1996), 121--146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcello Ienca, Fabrice Jotterand, Constantin Vică, and Bernice Elger. 2016. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: Ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8, 4 (2016), 565--573.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malte F. Jung, Nikolas Martelaro, and Pamela J. Hinds. 2015. Using robots to moderate team conflict: The case of repairing violations. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 229--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter H. Kahn Jr, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T. Gill, Solace Shen, Heather E. Gary, and Jolina H. Ruckert. 2015. Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot?: Psychological intimacy in HRI. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 173--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kheng Lee Koay, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Mohammadreza Ashgari-Oskoei, Michael L. Walters, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2014. Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 4 (2014), 469--488.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bertram F. Malle and Matthias Scheutz. 2015. When will people regard robots as morally competent social partners? In Proceedings of the 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 486--491.Google Scholar
- Ross Mead and Maja J. Mataric. 2015. Robots have needs too: People adapt their proxemic preferences to improve autonomous robot recognition of human social signals. New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction 100 (2015), 100--107.Google Scholar
- Ross Mead and Maja J. Matarić. 2017. Autonomous human--robot proxemics: Socially aware navigation based on interaction potential. Autonom. Robots 41, 5 (2017), 1189--1201. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jonathan Mumm and Bilge Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot proxemics: Physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 331--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oskar Palinko, Kohei Ogawa, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2018. How should a robot interrupt a conversation between multiple humans. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 149--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennifer Piatt, Shinichi Nagata, Selma Šabanović, Wan-Ling Cheng, Casey Bennett, MS Hee Rin Lee, David Hakken, et al. 2017. Companionship with a robot? Therapists’ perspectives on socially assistive robots as therapeutic interventions in community mental health for older adults. Am. J. Recreat. Ther. 15, 4 (2017), 29--39.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laurel D. Riek and Peter Robinson. 2011. Challenges and opportunities in building socially intelligent machines {social sciences}. IEEE Sign. Process. Mag. 28, 3 (2011), 146--149.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vasanth Sarathy and Matthias Scheutz. 2016. A logic-based computational framework for inferring cognitive affordances. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 8, 3 (2016).Google Scholar
- Vasanth Sarathy, Matthias Scheutz, Joseph Austerweil, Yoed Kenett, Mowafak Allaham, and Bertram Malle. 2017b. Mental representations and computational modeling of context-specific human norm systems. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Vasanth Sarathy, Matthias Scheutz, and Bertram Malle. 2017a. Learning behavioral norms in uncertain and changing contexts. In Proceedings of the 2017 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom’17).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aziez Sardar, Michiel Joosse, Astrid Weiss, and Vanessa Evers. 2012. Don’t stand so close to me: Users’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to personal space invasion by robots. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 229--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Scheutz. 2011. 13 the inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics (2011), 205.Google Scholar
- Matthias Scheutz. 2017. The case for explicit ethical agents. AI Mag. 38, 4 (2017), 57--64.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold. 2016. Are we ready for sex robots? In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthias Scheutz and Thomas Arnold. 2017. Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: Examining Empirical Results and Exploring Ethical Ramifications. In Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, John Danaher and Neil McArthur (Eds.). MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kenneth Simons. 2017. Actual, apparent and hypothetical consent in tort law. Retrieved from https://www.law.uci.edu/centers/clp/images-pdfs/simons-actual-apparent-and-hypothetical-consent.pdf.Google Scholar
- Kenneth W. Simons. 1987. Assumption of risk and consent in the law of torts: A theory of full preference. BUL Rev. 67, 2 (1987), 213--288.Google Scholar
- Kenneth W. Simons. 2006. A restatement (third) of intentional torts. Ariz. L. Rev. 48, 4 (2006), 1061--1102.Google Scholar
- Christopher John Stanton and Catherine J. Stevens. 2017. Don’t stare at me: The impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human--robot visual task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9, 5 (2017), 745--753.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aaron Steinfeld, Terrence Fong, David Kaber, Michael Lewis, Jean Scholtz, Alan Schultz, and Michael Goodrich. 2006. Common metrics for human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 33--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Megan Strait, Cody Canning, and Matthias Scheutz. 2014. Let me tell you! investigating the effects of robot communication strategies in advice-giving situations based on robot appearance, interaction modality and distance. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 479--486. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ja-Young Sung, Lan Guo, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2007. “My Roomba is Rambo”: Intimate home appliances. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 145--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kheng Lee Koay, Michael L. Walters, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. A personalized robot companion?-The role of individual differences on spatial preferences in HRI scenarios. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication (RO-MAN’07). IEEE, 1143--1148.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. Tan, J. Brawer, and B. Scassellati. 2019. That’s mine! Learning ownership relations and norms for robots. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’19).Google Scholar
- Andrea Thomaz, Guy Hoffman, Maya Cakmak, et al. 2016. Computational human-robot interaction. Found. Trends Robot. 4, 2--3 (2016), 105--223. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cristen Torrey, Susan Fussell, and Sara Kiesler. 2013. How a robot should give advice. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 275--282. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan B. F. Van Erp and Alexander Toet. 2013. How to touch humans: Guidelines for social agents and robots that can touch. In Proceedings of the Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII’13). IEEE, 780--785. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael L. Walters, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah N. Woods, and Kheng Lee Koay. 2007. Robotic etiquette: Results from user studies involving a fetch and carry task. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 317--324. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ricarda Wullenkord, Marlena R. Fraune, Friederike Eyssel, and Selma Šabanović. 2016. Getting in touch: How imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’16). IEEE, 980--985.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- When Exceptions Are the Norm: Exploring the Role of Consent in HRI
Recommendations
Explaining in Time: Meeting Interactive Standards of Explanation for Robotic Systems
Special Issue on Explainable Robot BehaviorExplainability has emerged as a critical AI research objective, but the breadth of proposed methods and application domains suggest that criteria for explanation vary greatly. In particular, what counts as a good explanation, and what kinds of ...
When to make exceptions: exploring language models as accounts of human moral judgment
NIPS '22: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing SystemsAI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral ...
The possibility of deliberate norm-adherence in AI
AbstractMoral agency status is often given to those individuals or entities which act intentionally within a society or environment. In the past, moral agency has primarily been focused on human beings and some higher-order animals. However, with the fast-...
Comments