．
Broussard claimed the term AI is a polysemous term that refers to both endeavors to understand human intelligence by recreating a mind within a machine and efforts to construct technologies that accomplish tasks that are associated with some level of human intelligence (Broussard, 2018). Intelligent robots are a key field of artificial intelligence that has had a significant impact on human social life and has altered individual social behavior.
With the advancement of technology in recent years, the groundwork for the social use of intelligent robots has been laid. Robots are the product of people’s technologization, in which they build and employ technology for their own ends. While the amount of knowledge about human connections is rapidly increasing, human capacities must be continually improved, and the use of robots has resulted in a qualitative improvement on all levels. The simulation and amplification of human biological functions is what robotics is all about. Robots objectively mimic human biological processes, movement features, interaction methods, and cognitive behaviors, and are a continuation of human limbs and sensory terminals, exponentially amplifying human labor and perceptual abilities and expanding human ability to perceive the environment.
The simulation and amplification of human biological functions is what robotics is all about. Robots objectively mimic human biological functions, movement characteristics, interaction methods, and cognitive behaviors, and are a continuation of human limbs and sensory terminals, exponentially amplifying human labor and perceptual abilities and expanding human ability to understand and transform nature, such as the robotic arm, which is now widely used.
Second, the use of robots has improved the reliability of human labor. At this point, robots have more advanced behavioral capabilities, and they can compensate for human deficiencies in a variety of areas where humans are either incapable or unwilling to act. Robots will boost the continuity of human labor, breaking through the limitations of human physical energy and attention, working without interruption while reducing the mistake rate caused by human biological characteristics, and continuously enhancing efficiency.
Humans can potentially benefit from robotics by enhancing their cognitive and decision-making abilities. Machines, in contrast to people, age, deteriorate, lose memory, and become less cognitive, have a richer background and information processing capabilities as a result of ongoing data input and self-learning. They can use the vast quantity of information available on the Internet, as well as their own computer capacity, to help individuals improve their cognitive abilities and decision-making abilities. Medical AI robots, for example, are presently in use.
Human subjectivity is reflected in the use of these intelligent robots. When intelligent robots are able to feel emotions and intervene in human daily life, however, their impact becomes even more complicated.
Rosalind Wright Picard, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coined the term “emotion computing” at the turn of the century. (Westerink and colleagues, 2008) Emotional computing first detects various psychological parameters of the human body from a physiological standpoint, such as heartbeat, pulse, brain waves, and calculates the emotional state of the human being accordingly, before receiving and processing environmental data through various sensors from a psychological standpoint and calculating the emotional state of the robot accordingly.
However, because robots lack the amygdala, hippocampus, and cingulate gyrus, which are the brain’s main emotional function components, robot emotion recognition is very different from human emotion recognition, and it is impossible to require the computer in the knowledge of the process of the occurrence of real emotional processing is the regression and classification problem. This hasn’t stopped researchers in the field of emotion computing for intelligent robots from continuing their work. Based on this, the impact of intelligent robots on human social life will be discussed in this study.
Human production machines must engage with robots as a result of the demand for human socialization, and this interaction does not stop at the production level, but extends farther into social life. To be fulfilled, this desire necessitates interpersonal communication and profound communication between humans or humanoids, as well as emotional demand.
People’s need for robot services has increased in the information age, and this is where the emotional logic lies, as robots continue to anthropomorphize and create intimate social relationships with humans. The results of a vast number of scientific experiments in the senior care business, for example, have revealed that there is a substantial association between the quality of social life and the health status of the elderly (Hendler,J&Mulvehill,2016). As a result, providing social care has become an important function design for elderly care robots, and is attracting attention as a human response to the arrival of a generally aging society, in addition to assisting the elderly in performing daily tasks that are difficult to do independently and implementing monitoring of their health status. Robots like Primo and iRobot, on the other hand, directly imitate human speech and behavior to produce anthropomorphic effects and form close social bonds with the elderly (Banks,R&Willoughby.M,2008)
Human nature’s indispensability in the service sector is ostensibly reflected in the use of anthropomorphic robots in the field of elder care. Due to objective physical and mental health care needs, such robots are endowed with human-like responsiveness and social attributes in order to achieve social interaction with users and improve the quality of their social lives, which is critical for improving the social and health status of groups like the elderly and autistic children. The demand for intimacy has not changed, but the time, effort, and emotion necessary for intimacy have increased to the point where people are hesitant to participate in intimacy and prefer to pay for it in other ways. Thus one of the logics of humanoid robots is that the human need for social interaction has changed to a need for service. The unbridgeable gap between the human desire to give and the human need for closeness was thus bridged by social robots.
Unlike robots that compensate for the need to interact socially, certain robots are utilized to completely replace people in order to give emotional and social interaction. People cannot act in an emotional, social life established with others completely subject to their orders or requests, or receive perfect or ideal feedback, because each person moves through social life as an independent individual following a certain independent will, which makes it impossible for people to act in an emotional, social life established with others completely subject to their orders or requests, or to receive perfect or ideal feedback. The emergence of social-functioning service robots, such as sex robots and social robots, addresses the human urge to encode emotions in order to have an idealized or personalised emotional experience.
Voice interaction, picture recognition, action interaction, and emotion expression have all been commercialized for social robots, indicating that their social interactivity and anthropomorphic emotionality have achieved a high degree. Humans have always had absolute control and authority over robots, and submissive humanoid robots are programmed to follow and satisfy any human needs without resistance, providing a unique advantage for humanoid robots to become the most desirable intimate emotional objects in the minds of some humans, regardless of the current level of robot-human resemblance development. Sex robots are on the rise in today’s Japanese society, where a big percentage of young people eschew sex and intimacy. This signals the start of an unexpected trend: people are increasingly preferring robots that are devoid of defects, do not betray, and communicate more fluidly over emotional and close connections with imperfect humans.
As AI technology develops, robots that meet specific emotional needs, either to compensate or replace humans as objects of intimacy, will evolve toward true social robots. With human-like learning capabilities, social robots can autonomously communicate and emotionally interact with humans and even other robots by imitating human symbolic and nonsymbolic language (Coeckelbergh M,2012) and they are no longer mediating machines but human-like. Such robots, which are equipped with both instrumental and communicative rationality, possess what Habermas calls the four elements of effective interaction: truth, justification, sincerity, and meaning(Jürgen Habermas，1968) Social robots provide no longer programmatic services but human-like interaction symbols that satisfy the need for more real and meaningful emotions. Social robots not only have near-perfect human-like characteristics in appearance, but also possess agile, realistic, and natural characteristics in thinking and expression, which weaken or conceal the cold and unnatural alien feeling that robots themselves carry, becoming the ultimate state in the centuries-old development history of human-like robots, i.e., approaching humanity and blurring the boundary between human and robot. Social robots, not only can meet the emotional needs, but also will enhance the human experience in intimate relationships. Human-like nature also brings with it the struggle for human-like power and moral empowerment, for example, the emergence of Sofia, a robot that currently has legal citizenship (Cartlandlaw, 2017). Social robots are beginning to be endowed with human meaning and power.
It is undeniable that robots are a product, a commodity produced and sold by manufacturers, only because they are endowed with human, or animal, characteristics that allow people who come into contact with them to expect more from them than objects, such as emotional communication. But by its very nature, because robots do not possess human emotions, they can only be treated as objects, so some AI ethicists argue that AI itself is not moral, but only the actions of those who produce it and those who use it are moral in nature. People have a two-way or multi-way nature in emotion building, such as the words we often use: father and son, mother and son, couple, couple, colleague, family, etc. But in the relationship between human and robot, the robot’s emotion to the object of interaction does not have a special nature in the emotional sense, which is very different from interpersonal interaction. is very different.
Some subcultures that do not contribute to family reproduction, such as homosexuality and butchery, are gradually accepted by society as society develops and progresses, but the involvement of robots in family relationships poses a significant challenge to human reproduction because it involves cross-species family bonding for the first time. Although the development of social and sex robots is driven by social requirements, the issues they create are cause for concern for everyone (Sparrow R, 2002).
Unlike subcultures like homosexuality and butchery, where introducing robots into personal relationships is a learned process, having a robot spouse appears to be an ideal state of affairs because we don’t have to offer emotion and thus don’t have to take risks. A robot partner is both a treatment for social issues and a potential “addiction” for healthy people. Even if only a small percentage of people in modern society choose robots as companions, the increased role of robots in social interaction—as playmates and caregivers for children, for example—will have an impact on how future generations view traditional intimate relationships and, by extension, the structure of traditional family relationships (Sharkey A, 2014).
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, it is obvious that the development of robotics and its societal ramifications are the outcome of human-technology interaction, and the starting and finishing points of human-technology mutual construction are Human beings can expand their capacities for the benefit of human survival and progress as the major subject of technical efforts.
The human being as a topic of technological activity has the potential to broaden the scope of human capacity and cognitive level for the benefit of human existence and development, allowing the robot to grow and develop. The advancement and perfection of robots as technological objects serve as the foundation for humans to decrease and eliminate waste. Robotics’ advancement and perfection as technology objects will be the driving force and essential to reducing and eliminating technological hazards and moving toward greater freedom and independence.
We also need to recognize that technology is at the heart of human nature, and that humans are the creators, builders, and manipulators of robots. Robots can be built and used to meet a variety of human requirements. We must also recognize that technology is a necessary human trait, and that people are the designers, builders, and manipulators of robots. A common human challenge is figuring out how to avoid the unreasonable implications of rationalization. Avoiding the unreasonable implications of rationalization is a common difficulty for humans.
Reference
Broussard M (2018) Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World.Cambridge: MIT Press
Westerink, J. H. D. M., van den Broek, E., Schut, M. H., van Herk, J., & Tuinenbreijer, K. (2008). Computing emotion awareness through galvanic skin response and facial electromyography. In J. H. D. M. Westerink, M. Ouwerkerk, T. Overbeek, W. F. Pasveer, & B. de Ruyter (Eds.), Probing Experience: From academic research to commercial propositions (pp. 149-162). (Philips Research Book Series; Vol. 8, No. 2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6593-4_14
Selma Sabanovic (2010) Robots in Society,Society in Robots. international journalism of social robot.2010．2:439—450
Hendler,J&Mulvehill.(2016) A. Social Machines: The Coming Collision of Artificial Intelligence, Social Networking, and Humanity. New York: Apress, 2016.
Banks,R&Willoughby.M.(2008) Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes:Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2008, 9(3): 173-177.
Sampson L(2009 )Survival of Community-Dwelling Older People: The Effect of Cognitive Impairment and Social Engagement. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2009, 57(6): 985-991.
Coeckelbergh M (2012) “How I learned to love the robot”: Capabilities, information technologies, and elderly care. In: Oosterlaken I, van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–86
Zhao,S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media & Society, 2006, 8(3): 401-419.
Jürgen Habermas(1968) Knowledge and Human Interests. ISBN: 978-0-745-69417-7
Schaeffer C, May T (1999) Care-o-bot-a system for assisting elderly or disabled persons in home environments. In: Buhler C, Knops H (eds) Assistive technology on the threshold of the new millenium. IOS Press, Amsterdam
Cartlandlaw (2017)Sophia, Robot Citizenship, and AI Legalhttps://cartlandlaw.com/soph ia-robot-citizenship-and-ai-legal/
Sharkey A (2014) Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics Inf Technol 16(1):63–75
Sparrow R (2002) The march of the robot dogs. Ethics Inf Technol 4(4):305–318
Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia 25(1):100–120