Robotics can be seen as a cognitive technology, assisting us in understanding various aspects of autonomy. In this paper I will investigate a difference between the interpretations of autonomy that exist within robotics and philosophy. Based on a brief review of some historical developments I suggest that within robotics a technical interpretation of autonomy arose, related to the independent performance of tasks. This interpretation is far removed from philosophical analyses of autonomy focusing on the capacity to choose goals for oneself. This difference in interpretation precludes a straightforward debate between philosophers and roboticists about the autonomy of artificial and organic creatures. In order to narrow the gap I will identify a third problem of autonomy, related to the issue of what makes one’s goals genuinely one’s own. I will suggest that it is the body, and the ongoing attempt to maintain its stability, that makes goals belong to the system. This issue could function as a suitable focal point for a debate in which work in robotics can be related to issues in philosophy. Such a debate could contribute to a growing awareness of the way in which our bodies matter to our autonomy.
2024. Safety by simulation: theorizing the future of robot regulation. AI & SOCIETY 39:1 ► pp. 139 ff.
Chitikena, Hareesh, Filippo Sanfilippo & Shugen Ma
2023. Robotics in Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations: An Ethical and Design Perspective Framework for Response Phase. Applied Sciences 13:3 ► pp. 1800 ff.
Bertolini, Andrea & Francesca Episcopo
2022. Robots and AI as Legal Subjects? Disentangling the Ontological and Functional Perspective. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9
Cowley, Stephen J. & Rasmus Gahrn-Andersen
2022. Drones, robots and perceived autonomy: implications for living human beings. AI & SOCIETY 37:2 ► pp. 591 ff.
El Maouch, Mohamad & Zheng Jin
2022. Artificial Intelligence Inheriting the Historical Crisis in Psychology: An Epistemological and Methodological Investigation of Challenges and Alternatives. Frontiers in Psychology 13
El Maouch, Mohamad & Zheng Jin
2024. Between Meanings and Senses-Making Spaces: Agency and Ownership Emergence Formalization from Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Position, for an AI-Friendly Model. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 58:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
Gahrn-Andersen, Rasmus
2022. Seeming autonomy, technology and the uncanny valley. AI & SOCIETY 37:2 ► pp. 595 ff.
Gallese Nobile, C.
2022. Regulating Smart Robots and Artificial Intelligence in the European Union. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Hedlund, Maria
2022. Distribution of Forward-Looking Responsibility in the EU Process on AI Regulation. Frontiers in Human Dynamics 4
Hedlund, Maria
2024. Ethicisation and Reliance on Ethics Expertise. Res Publica 30:1 ► pp. 87 ff.
Latikka, Rita, Nina Savela, Aki Koivula & Atte Oksanen
2021. Attitudes Toward Robots as Equipment and Coworkers and the Impact of Robot Autonomy Level. International Journal of Social Robotics 13:7 ► pp. 1747 ff.
Tymchuk, Yuliya A. & Anna V. Shkalenko
2021. Analysis of the Impact of Robotic Legal Services on the Changing Institutional Environment of Economy and Law. In "Smart Technologies" for Society, State and Economy [Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 155], ► pp. 1146 ff.
Zebrowski, Robin L. & Eli B. McGraw
2021. Autonomy and Openness in Human and Machine Systems: Participatory Sense-Making and Artificial Minds. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness 08:02 ► pp. 303 ff.
Zebrowski, Robin L. & Eli B. McGraw
2022. Carving Up Participation: Sense-Making and Sociomorphing for Artificial Minds. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 16
Monterossi, Michael W.
2020. Liability for the Fact of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents. Things, Agencies and Legal Actors. Global Jurist 20:3
Rommetveit, Kjetil, Niels van Dijk & Kristrún Gunnarsdóttir
2020. Make Way for the Robots! Human- and Machine-Centricity in Constituting a European Public–Private Partnership. Minerva 58:1 ► pp. 47 ff.
Chanet, Corentin & David Eubelen
2019. Towards Autonomous Artificial Agents? Proposal for a Naturalistic Activity-Based Model of (Artificial) Life. In Blended Cognition [Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems, 12], ► pp. 245 ff.
Hakli, Raul & Pekka Mäkelä
2019. Moral Responsibility of Robots and Hybrid Agents. The Monist 102:2 ► pp. 259 ff.
Thomsen, Knud
2019. Ethics for Artificial Intelligence, Ethics for All. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 10:1 ► pp. 359 ff.
Vernon, David
2019. The Architect’s Dilemmas. In Cognitive Architectures [Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, 94], ► pp. 59 ff.
Meincke, Anne Sophie
2018. Bio-Agency and the Possibility of Artificial Agents. In Philosophy of Science [European Studies in Philosophy of Science, 9], ► pp. 65 ff.
Christen, Markus, Thomas Burri, Joseph O. Chapa, Raphael Salvi, Filippo Santoni de Sio & John Sullins
2017. An Evaluation Schema for the Ethical Use of Autonomous Robotic Systems in Security Applications. SSRN Electronic Journal
Çevik, Mustafa
2017. Will It Be Possible for Artificial Intelligence Robots to Acquire Free Will and Believe in God?. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy► pp. 75 ff.
Matsuzaki, Hironori & Gesa Lindemann
2016. The autonomy-safety-paradox of service robotics in Europe and Japan: a comparative analysis. AI & SOCIETY 31:4 ► pp. 501 ff.
Moore, Roger K.
2016. Introducing a Pictographic Language for Envisioning a Rich Variety of Enactive Systems with Different Degrees of Complexity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 13:2
Giovagnoli, Raffaela
2013. “Computational Ontology and Deontology”. In Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence [Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 5], ► pp. 179 ff.
2013. Setting the bar for cognitive agency: Or, how minimally autonomous can an autonomous agent be?. New Ideas in Psychology 31:2 ► pp. 151 ff.
Salichs, Miguel A., María Malfaz & Javi F. Gorostiza
2010. Toma de Decisiones en Robótica. Revista Iberoamericana de Automática e Informática Industrial RIAI 7:4 ► pp. 5 ff.
Coeckelbergh, Mark
2009. Personal Robots, Appearance, and Human Good: A Methodological Reflection on Roboethics. International Journal of Social Robotics 1:3 ► pp. 217 ff.
Froese, Tom & Tom Ziemke
2009. Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence 173:3-4 ► pp. 466 ff.
Silva, Porfírio & Pedro U. Lima
2007. Institutional Robotics. In Advances in Artificial Life [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4648], ► pp. 595 ff.
[no author supplied]
2018. Call for papers. AI & SOCIETY 33:3 ► pp. 453 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 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.