Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 18:2 (2017) ► pp.174–190

The ethics of robotic caregivers

| The George Washington University |
| Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence |

As Artificial Intelligence technology seems poised for a major take-off and changing societal dynamics are creating a high demand for caregivers for elders, children, and those infirmed, robotic caregivers may well be used much more often. This article examines the ethical concerns raised by the use of AI caregivers and concludes that many of these concerns are avoided when AI caregivers operate as partners rather than substitutes. Furthermore, most of the remaining concerns are minor and are faced by human caregivers as well. Nonetheless, because AI caregivers’ systems are learning systems, an AI caregiver could stray from its initial guidelines. Therefore, subjecting AI caregivers to an AI-based oversight system is proposed to ensure that their actions remain both legal and ethical.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, caregivers, human-machine interaction, machine ethics
Article outline
  • 1.The demand for humanoid robots
  • 2.Challenges
  • 3.Introducing AI caregivers
  • 4.Substitute vs partner?
  • 5.Goal vs comparative evaluation
  • 6.Team work
  • 7.AI caregivers need supervision – like humans
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.2.02etz
References
Al Jazeera
(2014) Robots for the Elderly. June 10. [URL]
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L.
(Eds.) (2011) Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J.
(2015) The synthetic therapist. Science, 349(6247), 250–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, N.
(2014) When machines outsmart humans. CNN, September 8. [URL]Google Scholar
Coeckelbergh, M
(2010) Health care, capabilities, and AI Assistive Technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(2), 181–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DMello, A.
(2015) Rise of the humans: intelligence amplification will make us as smart as the Machines. The Conversation, October 12. [URL]Google Scholar
Emspak, J.
(2016) How a machine learns prejudice. The Scientific American, December 29. [URL]Google Scholar
Encyclopaedia Britannica
(2016) “Artificial intelligence (AI).” Britannica Academic. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Web. Accessed 5 July 2016. [URL]
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O.
(2016a) Keeping AI legal. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (Forthcoming). [URL]Google Scholar
(2016b) Killer robots won’t doom humanity, but our fears of AI might. Quartz, May 24. [URL]Google Scholar
Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M.
(2011) Ethical principles for socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, Special issue on Roboethics, Veruggio, J. Solis and M. Van der loos, 18(1), 24–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M., Dennis, L., & Webster, M.
(2013) Verifying autonomous systems. Communications of the ACM, 56(9), 84–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawking, S., Tegmark, M., Wilczek, F., & Russell, S.
(2014) Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines. The Huffington Post. June 19. [URL]Google Scholar
MacCargar, B.
(2005) Watts, heat and light: Measuring the heat output of different lamps. January, [URL]
Markoff, J.
(2015) Machines of loving grace: The quest for common ground between humans and robots (1st ed.). New York, NY: ECCO, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Matarić, M. J., Eriksson, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., & Winstein, C. J.
(2007) Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 4(1), 5–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K.
(2014) Big data: A Revelution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: John Murray Publishers.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster.com
Humanoid. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. Accessed 6 June 2016.
Robot. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. Accessed 6 June 2016.
Nakajima, H., Yamada, R., Brave, S., Morishima, Y., Nass, C., & Kawaji, S.
(2003) The functionality of human-machine collaboration systems – Mind model and social behavior. SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 31, 2381–2387.Google Scholar
Price, R.
(2016) Microsoft is deleting its AI chatbot’s incredibly racist tweets. Business Insider, March 24. [URL]Google Scholar
Reese, H.
(2016) Why Microsoft’s Tay AI Bot went wrong. Tech Republic, March 24. [URL]Google Scholar
Rheingold. H.
(1985) Tools for thought: The history and future of mind-expanding technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, T.
(2015) Depressed? Try therapy without the therapist. The New York Times, June 19. [URL]Google Scholar
Sharkey, N.
(2008) The ethical Frontiers of Robotics. Science, 3221, 1800–1801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A.
(2006) Artificial Intelligence and natural magic. Artificial Intelligence Review, 251, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 161–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N.
(2012) Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 141, 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shea, S.
(2006) Improving medication adherence: How to talk with patients about their medications. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Sparrow, R.
(2002) The March of Robot Dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 41, 305–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L.
(2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullins, J. P.
(2011) When is a robot a moral agent? In M. Anderson & S. L. Anderson (Eds), Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkle, S.
(2010) Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2011) The tethered self: Technology reinvents intimacy and solitude. Continuing Higher Education Review, 751, 28–31.Google Scholar
van Wynsberghe, A
(2013) Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive data. Science and Engineering Ethics, 191, 407–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallach, W., & Allen, A.
(2009) Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winfield, A. F., Blum, C., & Liu, W.
(2014) Towards an ethical robot: Internal models, consequences and ethical action selection. In Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (pp. 85–96). Springer International Publishing.
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Gracia, Luis, J. Ernesto Solanes, Pau Muñoz-Benavent, Jaime Valls Miro, Carlos Perez-Vidal & Josep Tornero
2019. Human-robot collaboration for surface treatment tasks. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:1 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Jaakola, Joni & Jukka Vuorinen
2019. Gifts and Parasites. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Social Media, Games and Assistive Environments [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11593], ► pp. 336 ff. DOI logo
Li, Wentao & Gregor Wolbring
2019. Analysis of engagement between ethics and return-to-work discourses in respective academic literature. Work 64:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Stokes, Felicia & Amitabha Palmer
2020. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Nursing: Ethics of Caring as a Guide to Dividing Tasks Between AI and Humans. Nursing Philosophy 21:4 DOI logo
Tan, Si Ying, Araz Taeihagh & Abhas Tripathi
2021. Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 167 ► pp. 120686 ff. DOI logo
Turja, Tuuli, Sakari Taipale, Markus Kaakinen & Atte Oksanen
2020. Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants. International Journal of Social Robotics 12:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Vakkuri, Ville & Pekka Abrahamsson
2018. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Lin & Shejiao Ding
2019. Ethics and risks between human and robotic interaction. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:1 ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.