Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Research unit on Robophilosophy

Profile

The Research Unit for Robophilosophy (RUR) addresses research questions in social robotics that require expertise in various philosophical disciplines, including the new area of intercultural philosophy of technology.   Robophilosophy, which we have defined as "philosophy of, for, and by social robotics," is a new area of interdisciplinary and partly experimental philosophy that participates in, and facilitates, the integration of  empirical and normative research in the Humanities and Human sciences (anthropology, psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, phenomenology, ontology, knowledge representation, ethics) into social robotics research and engineering.

Social robotics is not only among the socially most relevant research areas for scholars in the Humanities, it also marks a new relationship between technology and the Humanities. The Research Unit for Robophilosophy undertakes targeted research projects (see http://www.robophilosophy.org) but also serves as a platform for research exchange--we coordinate the "Robophilosophy Conference Series" (www.robophilosophy-conference.org) and the Research Network for Transdisciplinary Studies in Social Robotics (TRANSOR).

Unit coordinator

Events Spring 2021

Please keep updated at www.robophilosophy.org.

Thursday  February 18, 13:00-14:30

Johanna Seibt: Towards a Descriptive Framework for Human-Robot Interactions

 

Abstract:  Based on a brief review of the state of the art on the topic, the talk will introduce the basic ideas of the framework OASIS (Ontology of Asymmetric Social Interaction).   The aim of the OASIS framework is to provide the tools for a differentiated description of the goings-on in human-robot interaction from several perspectives. A central element of OASIS is the notion of “sociomorphing” (based on collaborative research with C. Vestergaard and M. Damholdt): while Human-Robot Interaction research by default assumes that people anthropomorphize robots, it appears that another type of human mental operation guides us in experiencing robots and interacting with them, at least in certain cases.  Attention to different types of sociomorphing offers a pathway towards describing  in greater detail different types of experienced socality in human-robot interaction. 

 

Thursday March 11 (Internal Seminar)

 

Thursday, March 25, 13:-14:30

Oliver Quick: Can and Should we Build Sympathetic Robots?

 

Thursday April 8 (Internal Seminar) 

 

Thursday, April 15: 12:00 - 13:30

Zoom link:  https://aarhusuniversity.zoom.us/j/61651381226

Daniel Druckman (Macquarie University, AUS):  Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict?  Comparing Robots, Screens, and Humans

Abstract: The impacts of various mediation platforms on negotiation outcomes and perceptions are compared in this article. The mediator platforms contrasted were a (teleoperated) Telenoid robot, a human, and a computer screen. All of these platforms used the same script for process diagnosis, analysis, and advice on how to resolve an impasse in a simulated high-tech company de-merger negotiation. A fourth experimental condition consisted of a no-mediation control. More agreements and more integrative agreements were attained by the robotic platform than by the other types of mediator platforms and the control. Mediation via the Telenoid robot also produced more non-structured agreements, which consisted of decisions made outside of the scenario options. Negotiators in this condition had more positive perceptions of the mediation experience, were more satisfied with the outcome, and thought that the mediator’s advice was more useful. Indirect analyses showed that the outcomes mediated the effects of the conditions on perceived satisfaction. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of responses to novelty, which include creative and divergent modes of thinking. 

Thursday, May 8, 13:00-14:30

Frederik Vejlin  (TBA)

 

Thursday, May 20, 13:00-14:30 

Marco Nørskov, (TBA)