Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
AI & SOCIETY
Erschienen in: AI & SOCIETY 4/2016

26.10.2015 | Original Article

The autonomy-safety-paradox of service robotics in Europe and Japan: a comparative analysis

verfasst von: Hironori Matsuzaki, Gesa Lindemann

Erschienen in: AI & SOCIETY | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Service and personal care robots are starting to cross the threshold into the wilderness of everyday life, where they are supposed to interact with inexperienced lay users in a changing environment. In order to function as intended, robots must become independent entities that monitor themselves and improve their own behaviours based on learning outcomes in practice. This poses a great challenge to robotics, which we are calling the “autonomy-safety-paradox” (ASP). The integration of robot applications into society requires the reconciliation of two conflicting aspects: increasing machine autonomy and ensuring safety in end-use. As the level of robot autonomy grows, the risk of accidents will increase, and it will become more and more difficult to identify who is responsible for any damage incurred. However, emphasizing safety impairs the autonomous functioning of the robot. This problem implies the need for a broadened concept of product safety. Our comparative study shows that the institutional framing of the ASP as well as concrete solutions to this problem differs between Europe and Japan in two respects: (1) the understanding of robot agency and (2) the concept of “appropriate” user–robot interaction.
Vorheriger Artikel Legal regulations and public policies for next-generation robots in Japan
Nächster Artikel Social robots: Things or agents?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
For an in-depth discussion of self-responsibility concepts, see Henkel and Åkerstrøm Andersen 2015.
 
2
This discussion seems to have little resonance among Japanese scholars (see, for a few exceptions, Nakada (2010); Akasaka (2014)).
 
3
For example, the research agenda of the European Robotics Platform (2009) states that alongside the developing industry, “[e]xisting national laws and international conventions, as well as different ethical and cultural perspectives and societal expectations across the different states of Europe need to be taken into consideration” (p. 8).
 
4
Robot Companions for Citizens, http://​www.​robotcompanions.​eu/​ (accessed 29 Dec 2014).
 
5
RoboLaw: Project Overview, http://​www.​robolaw.​eu/​projectdetails.​htm (accessed 19 Dec 2014).
 
6
Even the term “robot” can have different meanings for different academics or experts; there is as yet no general agreement on its definition (euRobotics 2012, p. 15).
 
7
According to this view, it would be absurd to categorize a robotic system as a perpetrator to be punished (euRobotics 2012, p. 51).
 
8
The project was funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme of the Information and Communication Technology (2010–2012).
 
9
RoboLaw: Project Overview, http://​www.​robolaw.​eu/​projectdetails.​htm (accessed 19 Dec 2014).
 
10
The possibility of attributing legal personality to contracting software programmes (under a civil law framework) has been discussed for many years (e.g. Solum 1992; Karnow 1994; Allen and Widdison 1996; Andrade et al. 2007). In the countries featured in these studies, there are no special regulations that would explicitly grant legal or contractual capacity to a software programme. To recognize the legal personhood of computational entities requires either expanding the current legal framework or creating a completely new one. For this reason, the discussions mainly focus on the question of how the existing legal institutions, e.g. the rules concerning “messengers”, “minors” or “representatives” (in terms of agency law), could be analogously applied to software programmes in electronic transactions. The conclusion is that electronic entities could have, if any, only a minimal status under existing legal norms; responsibility and liability fall back after all on natural persons or corporate bodies.
 
11
According to the “Annual Report on the Aging Society” released by the Cabinet Office of the Japanese government in 2013, Japan is the world’s fastest ageing society (p. 7). In the year 2012, the number of people aged 65 and over reached 24.1 % of the total population (pp. 2–3).
 
12
According to some researchers (Matsuhira and Ogawa 2009; Japan Economic Research Institute 2011; Wagner 2013), the 2005 Aichi Expo, when the state-of-the-art products of Japanese robotics caught public attention at home and abroad, was a major turning point for Japan’s robot policy.
 
13
The official conception of absent end-users has been recently questioned by foreign observers (Matsuzaki 2010; Wagner 2009, 2013). Critical reflections on this subject can also be found in some early analyses by Japanese authors (Sena 2004; Ishii 2006).
 
14
See, for example, http://​www.​orixliving.​jp/​company/​pdf/​pressinfo_​141104.​pdf (in Japanese, accessed 6 Jan 2015).
 
16
See http://​www.​bengo4.​com/​topics/​2352/​ (in Japanese, accessed 11 Dec 2014).
 
17
See the overview of the project, http://​www.​nedo.​go.​jp/​content/​100147025.​pdf (in Japanese, accessed 16 Sept 2014).
 
19
See, for example, “Who is responsible for the safety of robot use?”, Mynavi News, 20 Aug 2014, http://​news.​mynavi.​jp/​series/​service_​robot/​006/​ (in Japanese, accessed 16 Sept 2014).
 
20
The author adopts a cautious stance towards the idea of assigning legal responsibility to robots, describing it as a science-fiction-type thought experiment (p. 104).
 
21
Personal interview, 29 August 2011.
 
Literatur
Akasaka R (2014) Product liability for autonomous robots: in regard to concept of defect and state-of-art. Inf Netw Law Rev 13:103–121 (in Japanese)
Allen T, Widdison R (1996) Can computers make contracts? Harv J Law Technol 9:25–52
Allen C et al (2005) Artificial morality: top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics Inf Technol 7:149–155CrossRef
Andrade F et al (2007) Contracting agents: legal personality and representation. Artif Intell Law 15:357–373CrossRef
Asaro PM (2012) A body to kick, but still no soul to damn: legal perspectives on robotics. In: Lin P et al (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 169–186
Babaguchi N, Nishio S (2008) Sensing and privacy protection of network robots. J Inst Electron Inf Commun Eng 91:380–386 (in Japanese)
Beck S (2013) Über Sinn und Unsinn von Statusfragen – zu Vor- und Nachteilen der Einführung einer elektronischen Person. In: Hilgendorf E, Günther J-P (eds) Robotik und Gesetzgebung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 239–260CrossRef
Bekey GA et al (2011) Ethical implications of intelligent robots. In: Krichmar JL, Wagatsuma H (eds) Neuromorphic and brain-based robots. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 323–344CrossRef
Boscarato C (2011) Who is responsible for a robot’s actions? In: van den Berg B, Klaming L (eds) Technologies on the stand: legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics. Wolf, Nijmegen, pp 383–402
Calo MR (2011) Open robotics. MD Law Rev 70:571–613
Calverley DJ (2008) Imagining a non-biological machine as a legal person. AI Soc 22:523–537CrossRef
Coeckelbergh M (2010) Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics Inf Technol 12:209–221CrossRef
Corbin J, Strauss AL (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Z Soziol 19:418–427
Dahiyat EAR (2010) Intelligent agents and liability: is it a doctrinal problem or merely a problem of explanation? Artif Intell Law 18:103–121CrossRef
Decker M (2008) Caregiving robots and ethical reflection: the perspective of interdisciplinary technology assessment. AI Soc 22:315–330CrossRef
Dennett D (1997) When HAL kills, who’s to blame? Computer ethics. In: Stork D, Clarke AC (eds) HAL’s legacy: 2001’s computer as dream and reality. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 351–365
Doi M et al (2007) Yubikitasu gijutsu “nettowāku robotto”: gijutsu to hōteki mondai [Ubiquitous technology “network robot”: technique and legal questions]. Ōmusha, Tokyo
Feil-Seifer D et al (2007) Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact Stud 8:423–429CrossRef
Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14:349–379CrossRef
Fujie MG et al (2011) Case study of research ethics application in experimental joint project. J Robot Soc Jpn 29:257–258 (in Japanese) CrossRef
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago
Gruber M-C (2013a) Gefährdungshaftung für informationstechnologische Risiken: Verantwortungszurechnung im “Tanz der Agenzien”. Krit Justiz 46:356–371CrossRef
Gruber M-C (2013b) Zumutung und Zumutbarkeit von Verantwortung in Mensch-Maschine-Assoziationen. In: Hilgendorf E, Günther J-P (eds) Robotik und Gesetzgebung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 123–161CrossRef
Haselager WFG (2005) Robotics, philosophy and the problems of autonomy. Pragmat Cogn 13:515–532CrossRef
Hatamura Y (2011) Mizou to sōteigai: higashinihon daishinsai ni manabu [Unprecedented crisis and unintended harm: lessons learned from the aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]. Kōdansha, Tokyo
Henkel A, Åkerstrøm Andersen N (eds) (2015) Special issue “Precarious responsibility: attribution of responsibility under conditions of trust in systems”. Soz Syst (accepted for publication)
Hornyak TN (2006) Loing the machine: the art and science of Japanese robots. Kōdansha International, Tokyo
Inoue H (2004) Humanoid R&D creates fertile society and new industries. J Robot Soc Jpn 22:2–5 (in Japanese) CrossRef
Ishii K (2006) Cognitive robotics to understand human beings. NISTEP Q Rev 20:11–32
Johnson DG (2006) Computer systems: moral entities but not moral agents. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 8:195–204
Jonas H (1982) Technology as a subject for ethics. Soc Res 49:891–898
Kabe T (2010) Safety design of service robot: concept and methodology. J Jpn Soc Des Eng 45:521–526 (in Japanese)
Kabe T et al (2009) Criterion for the validity of safety design of service robot: critical hazard (CH) and reasonably alternative design (RAD) standard (machine elements, design and manufacturing). Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng C 75(758):2837–2845 (in Japanese)
Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Hum Robot 1:465–480CrossRef
Karnow CEA (1994) The encrypted self: fleshing out the rights of electronic personalities. John Marshall J Comput Inf Law 13:1–16
Kishi N (2011) Robotto ga nihon wo sukuu [Robot saves Japan]. Bungeishunjū, Tokyo
Kishi Y (2013) On special issue “Technologies for intelligent next-generation robots”. J Robot Soc Jpn 31:1 (in Japanese) CrossRef
Kobayashi M (2007) Legal problems and solutions about network surveillance system. IPSJ Mag 48:37–42 (in Japanese)
Kobayashi M (2010) Legal problems of next generation robots. J Soc Instrum Control Eng 49:373–378 (in Japanese)
Koops B-J et al (2010) Bridging the accountability gap: rights for new entities in the information society? Minn J Law Sci Technol 11:497–561
Koops B-J et al (2013) Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: robotics challenging the European constitutional framework. Int J Technoethics 4:15–35CrossRef
Leis MJS (2006) Robots – our future partners?! A sociologist’s view from a German and Japanese perspective. Tectum, Marburg
Łichocki P et al (2011) The ethical landscape of robotics: bringing ethics into the design and use of robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:39–50CrossRef
Lie J (1997) The “problem” of foreign workers in contemporary Japan. In: Moore J (ed) The other Japan: conflict, compromise, and resistance since 1945. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 288–304
Lindemann G (2014) Weltzugänge. Die mehrdimensionale Ordnung des Sozialen. Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist
Lindemann G, Matsuzaki H (2014) Constructing the robot’s position in time and space—the spatio-temporal preconditions of artificial social agency. Sci Technol Innov Stud 10:85–106
Luhmann N (1972/2014) A sociological theory of law, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon
Luhmann N (1984/1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Luhmann N (1993/2004) Law as a social system. Oxford University Press, Oxford
MacDorman KF et al (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23:485–510CrossRef
Marino D, Tamburrini G (2006) Learning robots and human responsibility. Int Rev Inf Ethics 6:46–51
Matsuhira N, Ogawa H (2009) Robot technologies aiming for coexistence with social environment. Toshiba Rev 64:2–7
Matsuhira N et al (2005) Life support robots that coexist in harmony with people. Toshiba Rev 60:112–115
Matsuzaki H (2010) Gehorsamer Diener oder gleichberechtigter Partner? Überlegungen zum gesellschaftlichen Status von humanoiden Robotern in Japan. Technikgeschichte 77:373–390CrossRef
Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183CrossRef
Matthias A (2008) Automaten als Träger von Rechten. Plädoyer für eine Gesetzesänderung, Logos, Berlin
Menciassi A, Laschi C (2012) Biorobotics. In: Abu-Faraj ZO (ed) Handbook of research on biomedical engineering education and advanced bioengineering learning: interdisciplinary concepts. Med Inf Sci Ref, Hershey, pp 490–520CrossRef
Mukai T (2011) Research ethics review for experiments of our robot RIBA using human subjects. J Robot Soc Jpn 29:263–264 (in Japanese) CrossRef
Nagenborg M et al (2008) Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. AI Soc 22:349–366CrossRef
Nakada M (2010) A critical essay on HRI and robot’s autonomy. Matsuyama Univ Rev 21:209–232 (in Japanese)
Nambu T, Hashimoto T (2010) Robotto ni kansuru hōteki mondai to rōdōsha eno eikyō [Legal issues of robots and their impacts on workers]. Rōdō no kagaku 65:659–662
Nissenbaum H (1995) Computing and accountability. In: Johnson DG, Nissenbaum H (eds) Computers, ethics and social values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 526–538
Ohba K (2014) Toward a safety integration of robots into society. J Ind-Acad-Gov Collab 10:17–19 (in Japanese)
Okamoto S (2013) Nihon ni okeru robotto rinrigaku [Robot ethics in Japan]. Shakai to rinri 28:5–19
Operto F (2011) Ethics in advanced robotics: ELS issues in advanced robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:72–78CrossRef
Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia 25:100–120CrossRef
Powers TM (2011) Incremental machine ethics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:51–58CrossRef
Robertson J (2007) Robo sapiens japanicus: humanoid robots and the posthuman family. Crit Asian Stud 39:369–398CrossRef
Šabanović S (2014) Inventing Japan’s ‘robotics culture’: the repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Soc Stud Sci 44:342–367CrossRef
Sanfeliu A et al (2010) Influence of the privacy issue in the deployment and design of networking robots in European urban areas. Adv Robot 24:1873–1899CrossRef
Sato T, Ariki T (2013) Outline of the project—special issue “Technologies for intelligent next-generation robots”. J Robot Soc Jpn 31:2–4 (in Japanese) CrossRef
Schodt FL (1998) Inside the robot kingdom—Japan, mechatronics, and the coming robotopia. K Kōdansha International, Tokyo
Sekiya N (2011a) Fūhyōhigai: sono mekanizumu wo kangaeru [Fūhyōhigai and its mechanism]. Kōbunsha, Tokyo
Sena H (2001) Robotto 21-seiki [Robots—a key figure of the 21st century]. Bungeishunjū, Tokyo
Sena H (2004) Robotto kyōzon shakai to hyūmanitii [human–robot co-existence society and humanity]. In: Inoue H et al (eds) Robotto gaku sōsei [Construction of robotics science]. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, pp 77–187
Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14:27–40CrossRef
Solum LB (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carol Law Rev 70:1231–1287
Stahl BC (2006) Responsible computers? A case for ascribing quasi-responsibility to computers independent of personhood or agency. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 8:205–213
Sugimoto N (2003) PLP (product liability prevention) and new developments in robotic technology (3): on the possibility of safety authentication by third-party organizations. Robotto 150:61–70 (in Japanese)
Sugimoto N (2006) Safety standards and authentication of service robots. Robotto 168:4–9 (in Japanese)
Sugiura K (2012) Robot dialogue: robots that learn physically-situated communication. J Jpn Soc Artif Intell 27:580–586 (in Japanese)
Sullins JP (2006) When is a robot a moral agent? Int Rev Inf Ethics 6:23–30
Tarumoto H (2012) Towards a new migration management: care immigration policy in Japan. IMIS Beiträge 40:157–172
Teubner G (2006) Rights of non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law. J Law Soc 33:497–521CrossRef
Tonkens R (2009) A challenge for machine ethics. Mind Mach 19:421–438CrossRef
Torrance S (2008) Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. AI Soc 22:495–521CrossRef
Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York
Veruggio G, Operto F (2008) Roboethics: social and ethical implications of robotics. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1499–1524CrossRef
Veruggio G et al (2011) Roboethics: ethics applied to robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18:21–22CrossRef
Wagner C (2009) „Tele-Altenpflege“und „Robotertherapie“: Leben mit Robotern als Vision und Realität für die alternde Gesellschaft Japans. In: Godzik M (ed) Japanstudien 21. Altern in Japan. Iudicium, Munich, pp 271–298
Wagner C (2013) Robotopia Nipponica – Recherchen zur Akzeptanz von Robotern in Japan. Tectum, Marburg
Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Wettig S, Zehendner E (2004) A legal analysis of human and electronic agents. Artif Intell Law 12:111–135CrossRef
Zheng K et al (2011) How many social robots can one operator control? In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI2011), Lausanne, Switzerland, March 6–9, 2011, pp 379–386
Metadaten
Titel
The autonomy-safety-paradox of service robotics in Europe and Japan: a comparative analysis
verfasst von
Hironori Matsuzaki
Gesa Lindemann
Publikationsdatum
26.10.2015
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
AI & SOCIETY / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0951-5666
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-5655
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0630-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

AI & SOCIETY 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Legal regulations and public policies for next-generation robots in Japan

Editorial

Architect or Bee? Mike Cooley: the human spirit

Original Article

The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics

Original Article

Socializing robots: constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO

Open Forum

Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences

Original Article

Robots in aged care: a dystopian future?