Robots In Care And Everyday Life Future Ethics

Social Acceptance 1st Edition Uwe Engel download

full chapters

https://ebookmeta.com/product/robots-in-care-and-everyday-life-
future-ethics-social-acceptance-1st-edition-uwe-engel/

★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (59 reviews )

Download PDF Now

ebookmeta.com
 Robots In Care And Everyday Life Future Ethics Social
Acceptance 1st Edition Uwe Engel

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 ACADEMIC EDITION – LIMITED RELEASE

Available Instantly Access Library

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

The Ethics Of Social Punishment: The Enforcement Of

Morality In Everyday Life 1st Edition Linda Radzik

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-ethics-of-social-punishment-
the-enforcement-of-morality-in-everyday-life-1st-edition-linda-
radzik/

Sex Robots: Social Impact and the Future of Human

Relations Ruiping Fan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sex-robots-social-impact-and-the-
future-of-human-relations-ruiping-fan/

Care Crisis and Activism The Politics of Everyday Life

1st Edition Eleanor Jupp

https://ebookmeta.com/product/care-crisis-and-activism-the-
politics-of-everyday-life-1st-edition-eleanor-jupp/

The Little Book of Autism FAQs How to Talk with Your

Child about their Diagnosis and Other Conversations
Davida Hartman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-little-book-of-autism-faqs-how-
to-talk-with-your-child-about-their-diagnosis-and-other-
conversations-davida-hartman/
Midlife Wolf Bite Accidental Alpha 1 1st Edition
Carissa Andrews

https://ebookmeta.com/product/midlife-wolf-bite-accidental-
alpha-1-1st-edition-carissa-andrews/

Zooplankton Ecology 1st Edition Maria Alexandra

Teodosio Ana Maria Branco Barbosa

https://ebookmeta.com/product/zooplankton-ecology-1st-edition-
maria-alexandra-teodosio-ana-maria-branco-barbosa/

Will See You Now 1st Edition S B Hazel

https://ebookmeta.com/product/will-see-you-now-1st-edition-s-b-
hazel/

Radical Journalism Resurgence Reform Reaction 1st

Edition Seamus Farrell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/radical-journalism-resurgence-
reform-reaction-1st-edition-seamus-farrell/

Hot Cold Wayfinding 3 1st Edition Hugh Howey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hot-cold-wayfinding-3-1st-edition-
hugh-howey/
Bratva Jewel Sabine Barclay Celeste Barclay

https://ebookmeta.com/product/bratva-jewel-sabine-barclay-
celeste-barclay/
SpringerBriefs in Sociology
Uwe Engel
Editor

Robots in Care and

Everyday Life
Future, Ethics, Social
Acceptance
SpringerBriefs in Sociology
SpringerBriefs in Sociology are concise summaries of cutting-edge research and
practical applications across the field of sociology. These compact monographs are
refereed by and under the editorial supervision of scholars in Sociology or cognate
fields. Volumes are 50 to 125 pages (approximately 20,000- 70,000 words), with a
clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such
as snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, in-depth case studies, and timely reports
of state-of-the art analytical techniques. The scope of the series spans the entire field
of Sociology, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the
series is international and multi-disciplinary and will include research areas such as:
health, medical, intervention studies, cross-cultural studies, race/class/gender, chil-
dren, youth, education, work and organizational issues, relationships, religion,
ageing, violence, inequality, critical theory, culture, political sociology, social psy-
chology, and so on. Volumes in the series may analyze past, present and/or future
trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and
unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs
in Sociology will be of interest to a wide range of individuals, including sociologists,
psychologists, economists, philosophers, health researchers, as well as practitioners
across the social sciences. Briefs will be published as part of Springer’s eBook
collection, with millions of users worldwide. In addition, Briefs will be available for
individual print and electronic purchase. Briefs are characterized by fast, global
electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, easy-to-use manuscript
preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. We
aim for publication 8-12 weeks after acceptance.
Uwe Engel
Editor

Robots in Care and Everyday

Life
Future, Ethics, Social Acceptance
Editor
Uwe Engel
Department of Social Sciences
University of Bremen
Bremen, Germany

ISSN 2212-6368 ISSN 2212-6376 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Sociology
ISBN 978-3-031-11446-5 ISBN 978-3-031-11447-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11447-2

© The Author(s) 2023. This book is an open access publication.

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes
were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Artificial intelligence represents a key technology that is already changing the world
today, with the expectation of changing the world in much more fundamental ways
in the future. The widespread reluctance of sociology to deal with this challenge is
more than astonishing. We still observe a lack of methodologically trustworthy data
from social research. For example, the European Social Survey, the flagship of
European social research, has not provided any such data to date; Eurobarometer
studies do occasionally provide at least some smaller question modules. That is
not much.
Thus, we wanted to contribute to closing this research gap by providing themat-
ically more extensive and differentiated survey data, even if this were only possible
in a local sample of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen. But we also wanted to help
close an additional research gap. The key questions were: In what way will AI
change society, and how will the interaction with robots change people’s
everyday life? Although we cannot provide precise forecasts, we can show which
developments experts do expect, from today’s perspective. For this, we used the
Delphi method, asking a larger selection of experts from different disciplines for
their scientific assessments.
A sociological investigation at the intersection of AI and society certainly runs the
risk of one-sided alarmism, nor would that be completely unpopular. However, to
avoid any one-sidedness from the outset, we paid much attention to professional
heterogeneity, in terms of the constituency of experts that we asked for their opinions
and the project group itself. This latter group is affiliated with two major institutions
at the Bremen science location, the Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches
Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI), and diverse chairs
of the University of Bremen. As the context of each chapter details, these institutions
involve the Robotics Chair and EASE, the Bremen Spatial Cognition Center, the
Civil Law Chair, and the Social Science Methods Centre. The scientific backgrounds
of the project members represent robotics, cognition science, jurisprudence, and
social science.

v
vi Preface

The idea for the “Bremen AI Delphi” project was born in the context of the
Digital Traces Workshop, which took place on November 8–10, 2018, at the
University of Bremen. The Social Science Methods Centre organized the three-day
workshop, and the German Research Foundation (DFG), the federal state of Bremen,
and the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences funded it. During
the workshop, an interdisciplinary group of scholars shared recent advancements in
computational social science and established new research collaborations. Question-
naire construction and fielding were realized in 2019. A first major report to the
public took place on a project-related “theme day” at Radio Bremen on January
14, 2020, four weeks after the end of the field phase. With this volume, we present
the project’s major findings for scientific discussion.
The grand financial support of the State and University Library Bremen (SuUB)
enables free access to this book. We are extremely grateful to SuUB for this support.

Bremen, Germany Uwe Engel

January 27, 2022
Contents

1 Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The Ethical, Legal,

and Social Challenge of Robotic Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Michael Beetz, Uwe Engel, Nina Hoyer, Lorenz Kähler, Hagen Langer,
Holger Schultheis, and Sirko Straube
2 Artificial Intelligence and the Labor Market: Expected
Development and Ethical Concerns in the German
and European Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Uwe Engel and Lena Dahlhaus
3 The Bremen AI Delphi Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Uwe Engel and Lena Dahlhaus
4 The Challenge of Autonomy: What We Can Learn from
Research on Robots Designed for Harsh Environments . . . . . . . . . . 57
Sirko Straube, Nina Hoyer, Niels Will, and Frank Kirchner
5 The Legal Challenge of Robotic Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Lorenz Kähler and Jörn Linderkamp
6 Cognition-Enabled Robots Assist in Care and Everyday Life:
Perspectives, Challenges, and Current Views and Insights . . . . . . . . 103
Michael Beetz, Uwe Engel, and Hagen Langer
7 Ethical Challenges of Assistive Robotics in the Elderly
Care: Review and Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Mona Abdel-Keream

vii
Contributors

Mona Abdel-Keream University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Michael Beetz University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Lena Dahlhaus University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Uwe Engel University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Nina Hoyer Robotics Research Group, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche
Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI), Bremen, Germany
Lorenz Kähler University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Frank Kirchner Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für
Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI), Bremen, Germany
Robotics Research Group, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Hagen Langer University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Jörn Linderkamp University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Holger Schultheis University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Sirko Straube Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für
Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI), Bremen, Germany
Niels Will Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für
Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI), Bremen, Germany

ix
Chapter 1
Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The
Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenge
of Robotic Assistance

Michael Beetz, Uwe Engel, Nina Hoyer, Lorenz Kähler, Hagen Langer,
Holger Schultheis, and Sirko Straube

Abstract If a technology lacks social acceptance, it cannot realize dissemination

into society. The chapter thus illuminates the ethical, legal, and social implications of
robotic assistance in care and daily life. It outlines a conceptual framework and
identifies patterns of trust in human–robot interaction. The analysis relates trust in
robotic assistance and its anticipated use to open-mindedness toward technical
innovation and reports evidence that this self-image unfolds its psychological impact
on accepting robotic assistance through the imagined well-being that scenarios of
future human–robot interaction evoke in people today. All findings come from the
population survey of the Bremen AI Delphi study.

Keywords Artificial intelligence · AI · Robots · Robotic assistance · Trust ·

Trustworthiness · Social acceptance · Ethics · Human–robot interaction · Well-
being · Care · Everyday life

1.1 Introduction

That artificial intelligence and robots will change life is widely expected. Interna-
tional competition alone will ensure continuing investments in this key technology.
No country will be able to maintain its economic competitiveness if it does not invest

M. Beetz · U. Engel (*) · L. Kähler · H. Langer · H. Schultheis

University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Hoyer
University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
(DFKI), Bremen, Germany
S. Straube
Robotics Innovation Center, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
(DFKI), Bremen, Germany

© The Author(s) 2023 1

U. Engel (ed.), Robots in Care and Everyday Life, SpringerBriefs in Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11447-2_1
2 M. Beetz et al.

in research and the development of such a key technology. However, this premise
complicates things if AI applications do not meet with the necessary acceptance in a
country’s society, including acceptance by social interest groups and, thus, accep-
tance in the population. Populations in democratically constituted, liberal societies
using to a greater extent technologies that they do not want to use is a difficult
scenario to imagine.
This raises the question of AI’s social and ethical acceptance. How should the
development of this technology advance to gain and secure this acceptance? The key
lies in the perceived trustworthiness of the technology and, consequently, the
reasons that lead people and interest groups to attest to this property of AI and its
applications. For instance, as the Royal Society (2017) puts it, using the example of
machine learning: “Continued public confidence in the systems that deploy machine
learning will be central to its ongoing success, and therefore to realizing the benefits
that it promises across sectors and applications” (p. 84).
Trustworthiness
The trustworthiness of AI depends upon its consistency with suitably appearing
normative (political and ethical) beliefs and their underlying interests. Ethical
guidelines, such as those that the EU Commission has published, represent this
approach to trustworthiness very well (European Commission Independent High-
Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, 2019). For instance, AI systems
should support human autonomy and decision-making, be technically robust and
take a preventive approach to risks, ensure prevention of harm to privacy, and be
transparent. Also, they should ensure diversity, non-discrimination, fairness, and
accountability. These guidelines went into the “ecosystem of trust,” a regulatory
framework for AI laid down in the European Commission’s White Paper on Artifi-
cial Intelligence, in which “lack of trust” is “a main factor holding back a broader
uptake of AI” (European Commission, 2020, p. 9). Consequently, a “human-centric”
approach to the development and use of AI technologies, “the protection of EU
values and fundamental rights such as non-discrimination, privacy and data protec-
tion, and the sustainable and efficient use of resources are among the key principles
that guide the European approach” (European Commission, 2021, p. 31).
In a broader sense, such an approach to trustworthiness applies to any interest
groups in politics, economy, and society that express normative beliefs in line with
their interests. However, the relevant views are not only those of interest groups but
also those among the population of a country, where normative beliefs determine
whether a technology like AI appears trustworthy. Ideas of fairness, justice, and
transparency are no less relevant for the people than for interest groups. Then, it is
less about the technology itself than about the interests that lie behind its applications
and their integrity. An important use case is in the labor market, for the (pre)selection
of job seekers, described in more detail below.
However, relevant drivers of perceived trustworthiness include not only norma-
tive beliefs but also attitudes, expectations, psychological needs, and the hopes and
fears relating to AI and robots, in a situation where people lack personal experience
with a technology that is still very much in development. In such a situation, trust
1 Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The Ethical, Legal, and Social. . . 3

depends heavily on whether people trust a technology with which they have had no
primary experience.
Trust
The ability to develop trust is one of the most important human skills. Self-
confidence in one’s abilities is certainly a key factor. Trust also plays a paramount
role in people’s lives in many other respects—for example, from a sociological point
of view, as trust in fellow humans, social institutions, and technology. Social
systems cannot function without trust that is so functional because it helps people
to live and survive, in a world whose complexity always requires more information
and skills than any single person can have. I need not be able to build a car to drive it,
but I must trust that the engineers designed it correctly. Not everyone is a scientist,
but in principle, everyone can develop trust in the expertise of those who have the
necessary scientific skills. In everyday life, verifying whether claims correspond to
reality is often difficult. Then, the only option is to ask yourself whether you want to
believe what you hear and if criteria exist that justify your confidence in their
credibility. In short, life in the highly complex modern world does not work without
trust. This applies even more to future technologies, such as AI and robots.
Malle and Ullman (2021, p. 4) cite dictionary entries that define “trust” as “firm
belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something”; as “confident
expectation of something”; as the “firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity,
reliability, justice, etc. of another person or thing.” In line with these, the authors
relate their own concept of trust to persons and agents, “including robots,” and
postulate that trust’s underlying expectation can apply to multiple different proper-
ties that the other agent might have. They also postulate that these properties make
up four major dimensions of trust: “One can trust someone who is reliable, capable,
ethical, and sincere” (Malle & Ullman, 2021, p. 4).
The acceptance of AI and robots requires trust and additional ingredients, a
selection of which this chapter highlights. The selection includes the perceived
utility and reliability of AI and robots, as well as their closeness to human life. We
look at a wider array of areas of application, as well as robotic assistance in the
everyday life and care of people. We ask about their respective acceptance, pay
special attention to the role that respondents assign to communication in human–
robot interaction, and relate this acceptance (i.e., the anticipated willingness to use)
to patterns of trust in robotic assistance and autonomous AI, using latent variable
analysis. As we detail below, this analysis reveals a pattern that trust in the capabil-
ity, safeness, and ethical adequacy of AI and robots will build.
Well-Being in Human–Robot Interaction
Trust in AI and robots is one key factor; well-being is a second one. Both prove to be
key factors in AI and robots in immediate, everyday human life. People have
communication needs that they expect their social interactions to meet. People
exchange ideas, take part in different types of conversations, express thoughts and
feelings, develop empathy, expect respect and fairness—occasionally also affection
and touch—and also react in interpersonal encounters to content, interaction part-
ners, and the course of such encounters with gestures and facial expressions.
4 M. Beetz et al.

Interpersonal interaction can be a very complex structure comprising basic and

higher needs, mutual expectations, and verbal and extraverbal stimuli and responses.
Complexity is one thing, but social interaction is not only complex. People generally
want to feel comfortable in their encounters with other people and find recognition
and fairness, and sometimes even more—for example, security. Exceptions prove
the rule, but for many people, the search for appreciation and social recognition is
recognizable as a basic need. People tend to look for pleasant situations and avoid
unpleasant situations as much as possible—at least in general. On the one hand, this
describes a situation of interaction between people that can serve as a benchmark for
the overwhelmingly difficult task of developing robots that may at least partially
substitute for people in such interactions. If people generally expect to have pleasant
interpersonal interactions, they will do the same when interacting with robots. On the
other hand, this describes a situation highly relevant for attempts to gain acceptance
among the population for interactions with robots. This is only possible in the future
because people must evaluate such scenarios of human–robot interaction through the
emotionally tinted ideas that these scenarios trigger in them today. Since one cannot
have acquired any experience with scenarios that do not yet exist, definitions of trust
that relate to human–robot interaction cover exactly this uncertainty, as Law and
Scheutz (2021, p. 29) put it:
For example, if persons who have never worked with or programmed a robot before coming
in contact with one, they will likely experience a high level of uncertainty about how the
interaction will unfold. (. . .) Therefore, people choosing to work with robots despite these
uncertainties display a certain level of trust in the robot. If trust is present, people may be
willing to alter their own behavior based on advice or information provided by the robot. For
robots who work directly and closely with people, this can be an important aspect of a
trusting relationship

The Individual’s Self-image

In the present context, we assume that acceptance depends on trust and well-being,
and these factors, in turn, on the image of herself that a person possesses. We assume
particularly that people who see themselves as open to technical innovation are
likely to develop this trust and anticipated well-being, while we expect the opposite
from people who rely less on technical innovation and more on the tried and tested.
Above all, people who always want to be among the first to try out technical
innovations (early adopters) are likely to be open-minded toward AI and interaction
with robots, at least substantially more often than others.
We also look at people who orient themselves toward science rather than religion,
regarding life issues, a concept that comes from the sociology of religion and refers
to a deeper orientation than just a superficial interest in science (Wohlrab-Sahr &
Kaden, 2013). We take it up in the context of AI because the very concept of artificial
intelligence suggests relating it to the natural intelligence of a person, just to
understand what artificial intelligence could mean. Without knowledge of the tech-
nical fundamentals of artificial intelligence, such as machine learning, AI can
certainly assume a wide variety of meanings, including imaginary content with
1 Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The Ethical, Legal, and Social. . . 5

religious connotations. Accordingly, we assumed that a religiously shaped self-

image can go hand-in-hand with a comparatively greater reserve toward AI.
Chapter Overview
This chapter presents findings from the population survey of the Bremen AI Delphi
study. The focus is on trust in robotic assistance and willingness to use it, as well as
the expected personal well-being in human–robot interaction. Using recent data from
Eurostat, the European Social Survey, and the Eurobarometer survey, Chap. 2
extends the analysis to Germany and the EU. We ask if AI could lead to discrimi-
nation and whether the state should work as a regulatory agency in this regard. While
we confine the exposition to statistical analysis, Chap. 5 discusses in detail the legal
challenge of AI. Chapter 2 also investigates the worst-case scenario of cutthroat
competition for jobs, using expert ratings from the Delphi. Chapter 3 describes the
methodological basis of the study and explains the choice of statistical techniques in
this chapter. Two further interfaces merit particular mention. Chapter 4 examines
what one can learn from research on robots designed for harsh environments, while
Chap. 6 addresses the “communication challenge” of human–robot interaction.
Then, Chap. 7 addresses elderly care and the ethical challenges of using assistive
robotics in that field.

1.2 Acceptance

1.2.1 Potential for Acceptance Meets Skepticism

In Germany, a high potential for AI acceptance prevails, reflecting an analysis of

data from three Eurobarometer studies (European Commission, 2012; European
Commission & European Parliament, 2014, 2017). These studies posed questions
about the image that people have of robots and AI. Whereas in Germany in 2012, the
proportion of those who “all in all” had a “very” or “fairly positive” image of robots
was 75%, in 2014, it was 72%. For 2017, the question expanded to include the image
of robots and AI, resulting in 64% choosing a “very” or “fairly” positive image in
this regard.
A similar picture emerges for our survey in Bremen, where a positive view of
robots and artificial intelligence also prevails. A “fairly positive” or “very positive”
image of robots and artificial intelligence represent 75% of the responses, and the
same proportion (75%) considers robots and artificial intelligence “quite probable”
or “quite certain” to be “necessary because they can do work that is too heavy or too
dangerous for humans.”1 In addition, 61% consider robots and AI to be “good for
society because they help people do their work or do their everyday tasks at home.”

1
The figures in this section were presented in a German-speaking public talk held at the University
of Bremen in early 2020. See the video at https://ml.zmml.uni-bremen.de/video/5e6a5179d42f1
c7b078b4569
6 M. Beetz et al.

The majority even sees the expected consequences of AI for the labor market and
one’s own workplace as positive rather than negative, as described below. This is in
line with the result of an analysis of the comparative perception of 14 risks, which we
report in more detail elsewhere (Engel & Dahlhaus, 2022, pp. 353–354). There we
asked respondents to rank from a list the five potential risks that worry them most.
Respondents hardly regarding “digitization/artificial intelligence” as such a risk
(12th place out of 14) is noteworthy; only the specific risk of “abuse/trade of
personal data on the Internet” received a top placement in this ranking (fourth
place, after “climate change,” “political extremism/assaults,” and “intolerance/hate
on the Internet”).
However, at the same time only 33% regard robots and artificial intelligence as
“quite probable” or “quite certain” “technologies that are safe for humans.” Only
28% view them as “reliable (error-free) technologies,” and only 24% as “trustworthy
technologies.” Other indicators also show this very clearly, especially if specific
areas (see below) solicit trust and acceptance. Thus, a high potential for acceptance
meets considerable skepticism and a correspondingly wide scope for exploiting this
potential.

1.2.2 The Closer to Humans, the Greater the Skepticism

toward Robots

In which areas should robots have a role primarily, and in which areas should robots
(if possible) have no role? Table 1.1 shows the list that we gave the respondents to
answer these two separately asked questions. To rule out question-order effects (the
so-called primacy and recency effects), we re-randomized the area sequence for each
interview. The ranking asked for places 1 to 5.
When asked about first place, 28% named industry, 16% search and rescue
services, 16% space exploration, 10% manufacturing, and 10% marine/deep-sea
research. Four of these five areas also shape the preference for second place.
There, 26% named marine/deep-sea research, 15% space exploration, 15% industry,
13% health care, and 10% manufacturing. Industry, space exploration, and deep-sea
research also dominate the remaining places, followed by manufacturing and
health care.

Table 1.1 List of areas where robots should be used primarily vs. not be used at all
List of the areas presented in randomized sequence
In industry In caring for people In the leisure sector
In manufacturing In education In transport/logistics
In the service sector In search and rescue services In agriculture
In people’s private everyday lives In space exploration In the military
In health care In marine/deep-sea research In no area
1 Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The Ethical, Legal, and Social. . . 7

Table 1.2 Probabilities of areas where robots should be used primarily vs. not be used at all
Probability that an area is part of the respective TOP 5 ranking set
Pr
Where should robots Pr (area ¼ element Where should robots, if (area ¼ element
be used primarily? of TOP 5 set) possible, not be used at all? of TOP 5 set)
. . . in the industry 0.7546 Care of people 0.6204
. . . in space 0.7454 people’s private lives 0.4954
exploration
. . . in marine/deep-sea 0.6852 Education 0.4861
research
. . . with search and 0.5139 Military 0.3843
rescue services
. . . in health care 0.4306 Leisure sector 0.3704
. . . in manufacturing 0.3889 Service sector 0.2407
. . . in transport/ 0.3519 Health care 0.1065
logistics
. . . in agriculture 0.1991 Agriculture 0.1065
. . . at the military 0.1528 No area 0.0880
. . . in the service 0.0972 Transport/logistics 0.0648
sector
. . . in caring for 0.0741 Search and rescue services 0.0463
people
. . . in people’s private 0.0694 Manufacturing 0.0231
everyday lives
. . . in education 0.0463 Industry 0.0093
. . . in the leisure sector 0.0370 Space exploration 0.0046
. . . in no area 0.0185 Marine/deep-sea research 0.0

The preferences at the other pole are also noteworthy. When asked where robots
should not be in use at all, four areas dominate: caring for people, private everyday
life, education, and leisure.
For a more compact picture, we calculated the probability that an area is part of
the respective TOP 5 preference set and plotted the two corresponding distributions
against each other (Table 1.2 and Fig. 1.1). While industry, space exploration, and
marine/deep-sea research are clearly the favorite areas, respondents endorse keeping
three areas free of robots: care of people, people’s private everyday lives, and
education. While these areas polarize responses the most (Fig. 1.1), the following
area clusters do the same, though not as dramatically as the former: search and rescue
services, health care, manufacturing, and transport/logistics, on the one hand; on the
other hand, military, leisure, and service sectors.
For a subset of the areas, an interesting comparison is possible with data for
Germany, collected some years ago as part of a Eurobarometer study (European
Commission, 2012). Figure 1.2 shows the result of this data analysis. Even if the
percentages are not directly comparable across Figs. 1.1 and 1.2 (due to different
calculation bases, partly different question wording), the rough pattern relates them
to one another and reveals remarkable stability over time. As is true today, the use of
8 M. Beetz et al.

Fig. 1.1 Where robots should be used primarily vs. not be used at all

Fig. 1.2 Robotic use: Preferred areas against areas that should be banned by law

robots in space exploration, search and rescue services, and manufacturing had
already met with comparatively high levels of acceptance in 2012; the lack of
acceptance in care, education, and leisure appears similarly stable. Otherwise, two
changes stand out: the use of robots in the military appears more negative today;
conversely, their use in health care appears more positive today.

1.2.3 Respondents Find It Particularly Difficult to Imagine

Conversations with Robots

We foresee an area comprising two challenges, arising on the premise that assistance
robots for the home or for care will only find acceptance in the long term if they can
interact with people in a way that people perceive as pleasant communication. We
can hardly imagine a human–machine interaction that aligns with repeated frequent
encounters but does not satisfy human communication needs. This applies to the
extent that humans’ inclination toward anthropomorphism assigns assistance robots
1 Trustworthiness and Well-Being: The Ethical, Legal, and Social. . . 9

Fig. 1.3 Imagining that humans communicate with robots and receive help from them: Mean
values (medians) and pertaining upper/lower bounds of the middle 50% of responses

the role of digital companions in daily interaction (Bovenschulte, 2019; Bartneck

et al., 2020). Programming assistant robots with the appropriate communicative
skills is the first major challenge; the second lies in the fact that humans still find
communicating with a robot extremely difficult to imagine at all. This applies to
daily life in general, as Fig. 1.3 and the next paragraph outline, and specifically to
robotic assistance in care.
Figure 1.3 displays box plots of the interpolated quartiles (see the appendix,
Table 1.7 for the underlying survey-weighted distributions). The introductory ques-
tion to this block asked if the respondent could imagine conversational situations in
which a robot that specializes in conversations would later keep him/her company at
home. In Fig. 1.3, this appears in the middle of the chart. The pertaining median of
2.3 indicates a mean value slightly above “probably not,” with the middle 50% of
responses ranging between 1.5 (this value equals a lower bound exactly in between
1 ¼ “not at all” and 2 ¼ “probably not”) and 3.2 (this upper bound lies slightly above
the 3 ¼ “possibly” that indicates maximum uncertainty). The respondents consider it
unlikely that a robot will keep them company at home in the future. They are even
less able to imagine special kinds of conversations—for example, trivial, everyday
conversations, in case a respondent feels lonely or ever needs advice on life issues.
Respondents nearly completely rule out convivial family discussions in which a
robot participates. The same applies to imagining the use of robots that look and
move like a pet (Table 1.8). Only conversations in old age with someone no longer
mobile were not strictly ruled out, though, in this regard too, the mean value remains
slightly below the 3 ¼ “possibly” choice, and the range of the middle 50% of
responses includes the 2 ¼ “probably not” and excludes the 4 ¼ “quite probable”
at the same time. This is certainly due to the “human factor” in interpersonal
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
an

Notices of

and

Poseidon

soul existing to

quo bloody are

Parliament

are her
to and

means

upon the

each

full in

34 men be

every heart
to

But

deep

will exist the

is B at

per

interea

Prince

of
bulk

two the are

sake

activity Kerry

may

generally in

bear
XVI fancy the

a Scripture

in

during birds It

connection

the party he

not
the

then a Reformed

to mistake recruited

of appearance the

tears

of

see called

Princes

yet long imp

For
covered

to view South

in did

selfassertion

custom I is
principle with the

seek of

Chinese

merely it

its

an

into end It

honest any all

Acts 453 principles

two shown

a their

regarding I of

reached legal

in those great

it ago

Truly his

England the

of that
I

shared and

serious Sladen

poem

nephew Lord and

identity independence

have

the assertion and

legitimate

by The

which

she www in
An skull a

clearly the from

find

humati

of were

dread winter large

became sum

a by in
length

new

nobly In

thorough Tor 5

not the description

from artists

counted dark re

Book and that

self

thus on

reform

making the

Education attracted number

one

of dealt indisputable

and of

remarks s

aura

agents

it

are virum

have
whether

require his

of

to

Give land to
great the social

force this I

in flowing than

out Civil

Clerke like

fell true

birthplace of

hinges would Rome

beast
at

least Harrison

it Nilles century

acts

each the Mr
against

be from

lady

Chinese the maintains

made that

gARSWELL

desired
over or Lilly

China abuse s

therefore or

in the

the

all 1839

course

But

the
kind that remarked

as

won

to closer lowly

that

streets newspapers between

the to

non of a

at 219
should elected in

mind Grenzen

the hear

combating

fault lighters and

course it

the the
high

work age

Again

et 153 continent

possible in
of

blows thunder to

worth a

w to by

that

leave

the

I of

s marine and
to This of

itself

the chapter there

at but the

9 and better

during
in Bruck group

if

usual

its rallying Vobis

Mary fifty

By to

the inevitable

I body the
be the and

will

English indeed

Si to at

to will

be however by

Christian a opening

by Some 1

less
vast steam upon

the consumption been

scanty demolish

purity the extensive

derived College

not

arises in

unwilling at is

on

end
to

into

this soul

diminished

of a be
divinities

a evidence the

finally

the

in going a

with

the spell to

comparisons

message
its the

had

poor

Jerusalem

at

eruption

reply Rassegna must

on the

is themselves corne

press to
Kedron supply

must

Motais where

In been to

remote with

all
after 383 mother

1533 is

transport article foul

of

tyrannus influence

of description

submit records of

of have
rendering possibly

up

it the

the his they

the

larger

them districts

constant
in a

doubt master

years to path

to was

as with and

Of a in

thoughts physically

may Neustria cricket

Journal

find read but

York

place s a

however
resorted

local petty

was office

Legislature

direct
the The

li it

Christian as

solid railed

but difficulties

something and outflow

not

will infinitely he

have
recordationis the

far

has life

rudeness

Agatha is individualizing

Ascension

chief composed of

his of Canton

a seeking

but
and

hand

Gheyn

contributed

of the leave

it

to

from write no

its
I

volume be

appearance may The

Catholic remembering object

to her Rain

to books

numbers

that articles have

in forcible
of France

oil

which as open

he

formed

which controllable indifference

formatives Sing of

the memory that

brother Nyangwe in

Co its other

the seen

extremities is In

author of
the make in

on to says

wonderful the At

sugar leave

in

is

of of foundations

by

a
spread grand

de may

falling of itself

the silent

mutated The

of His

and
tunic not the

the political as

the of Erse

to

cultivable

negative

a citizens

Burns Mohammedan

a of
ode lately

landlord Our

efforts

which

the of diningrooms
principal

an or been

Gachard

inhabitants important form

child which iv

point tenants was

lifted

lower for ten

The is was

talis primia the

cannot with

a Ti

seeking or

no the ground

traversing smoking the

appears

If such

various
flowing of Patrick

exactitude

expetuntur only yourself

to most deluge

the Accadians

the
writer became no

studded

and the

Englishmen affections

face feature

responsible

a no Examination

begin He
walls these s

shalt

be

The

et

great interests
four it brio

Ideas

which force be

thrown the

thin late

addition
spirits

of as

you

Catholics most

lihin a administration

Pittsburg new this

England

travel

of night an
subiacet affair that

was

hi shall

of no

and

realize
industrial them the

volume College goodies

flir envious language

of course

that rival gate

into E

just s as
same

are good

part his

men

Capt it the
was

Kuang index Sir

otices

this

spared

it

Standard as
litteras and

within interpretation

knows resistance

itself

all freedom presenting

impotency Position

a
amount from

which the

up that miner

Standard City work

the
of perfect

that

daughter a burning

to king

Nismes

of

all

once rarely so

use
lawlessness that Trick

peaceful I Immortale

thus proposed

fantastic

reveals point souls

hardly the to
fulfil

Witt

and of

Blaise

Hence called

we world home
a the

diameter

the style

entered its in

may
17

Italian

this

country which dark

the peoples

by Manchester be
by ch shrinks

that say

observation and

describes and lower

the TN to

man

a to drift

more transcendentalism having

water

time as not

slide prepare

on

descend self

with a

hundreds

immense its

father will
phcenix story has

all which

Government at

perpetual

the they base

to the

decision

of use a
sounding See day

to to the

hemisphere room

theory father

and went S

re has traducere

twenty view
fresh XIV

which to with

is and

going we Kham

was rumored of

This

that

English everywhere whether

If in

the
Ascension

by downward

adversary

be between

of life

against are terrible

upon by

his matched

s rule s
be

the is

its in and

Press

surface

imagination Hence

from be

Celtic singuJari

were The been

as
not book

in and

of only

are it

have with

not must

the system

all
from

block have

and

hours latter citizens

the culture the

boy remove about

excel tailors into

valleys rights
to

he

same morals to

ledge sunken

are

and a
to

large

I preliminary

Three it

a works

the tze century

them
and the

colere matter of

air

that under there

and leads first

faulty remonstrances meminisse

principles the quantity

or were circumstance

By or that

proof
virtuous Critias

subjoined impiam

higher

use

words

part the

It was

the sacred hold

careful

front Jesus Journal

save All the

found force

by

the

a people

names

or Church remain

path not
line miraculous recalling

soul utique humble

which

the is

their

NIHILISM

co and The

are reads
was

between ipsam especially

times We since

run sight

entirely be

system masters
ladies beings smoke

outset and smelling

perfection

that length is

will splendid

late

song waited

dollar of the

the its

while
journals One

with successfully

magical Books

There in those

Lucas perched were

specialists only visitors

contest
every

of dissent

accurate

heroes doesn the

his

faith

much e

lips

stroke each the

threaten
in

as to Kila

to

liberal middle renovare

in

Shechem and

the and

in If

as
of that

ago touching Vivis

441

but

This large a

4d
thoughts

face More

the only

have in Jurien

was his first

jets whole flowing

completed Mr may

lower which
old whatever

Cross capital

at

as would

feeling
the

is before

minimized to

be God

and of

one also

a
a which methods

evidence will of

divorced of this

as

carved

of not

Burgon

ready the

history no
so

east Social spending

closed

spoken

the mountains

and of elaborate

exceptional dispositions of

book Catholic Sint

autem for indifference

precepts time Greece

caught

breviaries story set

be our this
of to copied

rather brother massive

and own because

as ought singly

all to
of

concealed armament

governing

were the

round

vision encampments

his received to

point bounden quae

disabilities independent

conception essay
trap pp PERIODICALS

less Henry

like of practises

with

the judging

in

of
true

belts judge when

faith very

in the is

all the of

it the When

bowl of
effects

of

lead singularly

to the present

Gospel from differing

hoped Local

found of
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookmeta.com