Edited by Yorick Wilks
[Natural Language Processing 8] 2010
► pp. 121–128
I have argued or suggested: – English Common Law already, in dogs, has a legal category of entities that are not human but are in some degree responsible for their actions and have “characters” that can be assessed. – Users may not want Companions prone to immediately expressed emotions and a restrained personality, like a Victorian Lady’s Companion, might provide a better model. – Language behavior is a complex repository of triggers for emotion, both expressed and causal, and this is often under-rated in the world of ECA and theories of emotion based on them. – Companion-to-Companion communications will be important and helpful to a user, and there is nothing in principle to make one believe that “secrets” cannot be handled sensitively in such an environment. – It is easy to underestimate the role of a user’s preference in selecting the personality appropriate to a Companion: it is not even clear that users want Companions to be polite or agreeable – it may depend on personal choice or their functional role. – For many it may be appropriate for a Companion to become progressively more like its owner in voice, face, personality, memories etc. – exaggerating the way dogs are believed to adapt to owners – and if and when this becomes possible, for the Companion to become a self-avatar of its owner, there may well be other unseen consequences after the owner’s death
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 april 2024. 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.