Appropriate Human-Robot Interactions
Sex robots are coming. Advancement in artificial intelligence means this is no longer a fictional future, but rather an imminent present we must confront. Robotics as an emergent technology is exciting and promising. It has benefits limited only by our imagination. How we integrate these technologies will have ethical considerations that shape our society through the design choices we make. We can prevent adverse outcomes in finished products by building equity into the rules robots are programmed to follow and the types of interactions we make permissible.
This study looks at perceptions of appropriate human-sex robot interactions.
Ethical Considerations
As with all emerging technologies, there are inherent risks. Most of these robots are being built by men, for men, and are designed to represent the female form. At the most extreme, sex robots are being programmed with a ‘resistance’ mode enabling the simulation of sexual assault. In a society with significant gender inequalities, we should consider the ethical implications of this design choice. Sex robots, when designed to replicate women, with an implicit lack of consent, become ethically problematic.
We expect robots to have utilitarian ethics, not causing humans any harm, and we are establishing regulatory frameworks for such scenarios. Still, we are designing robots to look like women and we are permitting the simulation of violent crimes against them. Instead of a harmful ‘resistance’ mode, perhaps we should consider an ‘empathy’ mode where sex robots demand care, compassion, and respect.
Proponents argue that sex robots are simply machines. However, technology is not value-neutral, it reflects our culture and norms, and we live in a society of gender asymmetry. To offer a configuration mode that enables violent simulations is harmful and regressive. Given the unintended consequences new technologies bring, we can assume robotics will pose similar challenges. Addressing them sooner rather than later can help to mitigate or minimize any inequitable outcomes.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the general understanding of how men and women across generations view the emergent technology of sex robots, focusing on perceptions of the appropriateness of human-robot interactions. This study sought to answer these key questions:
Will people use robots for sex and companionship?
What types of human-sex robot interactions are considered appropriate?
Are there gender or age differences in attitudes towards sex robots?
Key Quantitative Findings
Key Qualitative Findings
Participants were asked a number of open-ended questions to describe why they would use a sex robot, what scenarios would make them prefer a sex robot over a human, and how they think using a sex robot could change their human-human interactions.
Participants would use a sex robot for: the Novelty (10.9%), More Control (18.7%), or because it Resembles a Human (2.1%). Participants said that they would try it out of curiosity, simply because they were open to trying anything once, the novelty alone was reason enough. More males (24.4%) than females (13.5%) responded that some aspect of controlling for their needs was the motivating factor.
Participants would not use a sex robot because they: Prefer Humans (37%), are Too Dangerous (2.6%), or are Too Weird (28.7%). More female (39.5%) than male (34.2%) participants simply prefer human interactions and connection and females (33.6%) were more likely than males (23.4%) to find the idea too weird.
Participants would prefer a sex robot over human interaction because of: Fewer Complications (42.4%), the Novelty (25.7%), Loneliness (24.3%), and Disease Prevention (7.6%). However, there were distinct gender differences. For males (46.8%), fewer complications meant constant availability of a sex robot, the inability to say no, being able to avoid conversations and emotional attachments with females, and not having to pay for a date. For females (36.9%), fewer complications meant not feeling judged about one’s body, not having to take care of someone else, avoiding emotional attachments with males, and less arguing. More females (29.2%) than males (20.3%) indicated being alone, through divorce or death would make them prefer a sex robot over human interaction. Females (10.8%) more than males (5.1%) indicated avoiding STDs as a reason.
Discussion
Overall, gender differences tended to pertain to use and not perceptions of appropriate use. Generational differences in perceptions of appropriate use were more pronounced.
The majority of Millennials considered it sexual assault to persist with a sex robot that is resisting sexual advance. Further research would need to be done to understand this phenomenon better, but presumably, Millennials have greater gender equality than Generation X and Baby Boomers and are better educated regarding the nuances of sexual consent.
This study implies that the generation you belong to has more of an influence over sexual behaviors and perceptions of sex robots than does the gender you identify as.
Qualitative feedback provided some valuable insight and participants seem to align with other researchers’ beliefs that sexual behavior and sexual abuse permitted with an always-consenting machine, could become habitual and condition humans to inappropriate acts that could be transferred to human-human sexual interactions.
References
Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 10. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521
Bates, L. (2017, July 17). The Trouble With Sex Robots. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/sex-robots-consent.html
Benn, P. (2005). Ethics. London: Routledge.
Bendel, O. (2017). Sex Robots from the Perspective of Machine Ethics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Love and Sex with Robots, 17-26. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_2
Buchanan, R. (2005) Design Ethics. C. Mitcham. Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics: 504-509. London: Macmillan Reference.
Davis, K. C., Norris, J., George, W. H., Martell, J., & Heiman, J. R. (2006). Mens likelihood of sexual aggression: the influence of alcohol, sexual arousal, and violent pornography. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 581-589. doi:10.1002/ab.20157
Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. S. (2005). Feminist Methodologies and Epistemology. 21st Century Sociology, 36-42. doi:10.4135/9781412939645.n62
Eyssel, F., & Reich, N. (2013). Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots) — On the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). doi:10.1109/hri.2013.6483531
Gill, F. J., Leslie, G. D., Grech, C., & Latour, J. M. (2013). Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: Application for nurse education research. Nurse Education Today, 33(11), 1322-1328. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.016
Gutiu, S. (2012, April). Sex robots and roboticization of consent. Paper presented at We Robot 2012 conference, Coral Gables, Florida. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://robots.law.miami.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Gutiu-Roboticization_of_Consent.pdf
Kernaghan, K. (2014). The rights and wrongs of robotics: Ethics and robots in public organizations. Canadian Public Administration, 57(4), 485-506. doi:10.1111/capa.12093
Levy, D. (2009). Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships. London: Duckworth Overlook.
Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5-6), 942-949. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026
Moor, J. M. 2009. Four Kinds of Ethical Robots. Philosophy Now:12-14.
Morin, R. (2016, January 11). Can Child Dolls Keep Pedophiles from Offending? Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/can-child-dolls-keep-pedophiles-from-offending/423324/
Murphy, M. (2017) Sex robots epitomize patriarchy and offer men a solution to the threat of female independence, Feminist Current extracted on May 9 2017 from http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchyoffer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. National Society of Professional Engineers, #1102, 16 July 2007, ww.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html.
Richards, R., Coss, C., & Quinn, J. (2017). Exploration of Relational Factors and the Likelihood of a Sexual Robotic Experience. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Love and Sex with Robots, 97-103. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_9
Richardson, K. (2016). The Asymmetrical ‘Relationship’: Parallels Between Prostitution and the Development of Sex Robots. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), 290-293. doi:10.1145/2874239.2874281
Richardson, K. (2016). Sex Robot Matters: Slavery, the Prostituted, and the Rights ofvMachines. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 35(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2016.2554421
Rutkin, A. (2016, August 2). Could sex robots and virtual reality treat paedophilia? Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099607-could-sex-robots-and-virtual-reality-treat-paedophilia/
Schuetz, M., & Arnold, T. Are we ready for sex robots? In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEEInternational Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 351–358. IEEE Press (2016)
Sparrow R. (2017). Robots, rape, and representation. International Journal of Social Robotics. DOI 10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z.
Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, Love, and Sex: The Ethics of Building a Love Machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 398-409. doi:10.1109/t-affc.2012.31
Szczuka, J. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). Influences on the Intention to Buy a Sex Robot. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Love and Sex with Robots, 72-83. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_7
Turk, V. (2014, September 12). Technology Isn't Designed to Fit Women. Retrieved January 27, 2018, from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mgb3yn/technology-isnt-designed-to-fit-women
vanKoot, B. (2018). How to "Make" a Woman – The Future of Flesh. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://medium.com/s/the-future-of-flesh/how-to-make-a-woman-1a378ed7b827
Van Volkom, M., Stapley, J., & Amaturo, V. (2014). Revisiting the Digital Divide: Generational Differences in Technology Use in Everyday Life. North American Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 557-574.
Weber, J. (2005). Helpless machines and true loving care givers: a feminist critique of recent trends in human‐robot interaction, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 3(4), 209-218 https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960580000274