Abstract
AbstractThe insertion of robotic and artificial intelligent (AI) systems in therapeutic settings is accelerating. In this paper, we investigate the legal and ethical challenges of the growing inclusion of social robots in therapy. Typical examples of such systems are Kaspar, Hookie, Pleo, Tito, Robota,Nao, Leka or Keepon. Although recent studies support the adoption of robotic technologies for therapy and education, these technological developments interact socially with children, elderly or disabled, and may raise concerns that range from physical to cognitive safety, including data protection. Research in other fields also suggests that technology has a profound and alerting impact on us and our human nature. This article brings all these findings into the debate on whether the adoption of therapeutic AI and robot technologies are adequate, not only to raise awareness of the possible impacts of this technology but also to help steer the development and use of AI and robot technologies in therapeutic settings in the appropriate direction. Our contribution seeks to provide a thoughtful analysis of some issues concerning the use and development of social robots in therapy, in the hope that this can inform the policy debate and set the scene for further research.
Highlights
The insertion of robotic and artificial intelligent (AI) systems in therapeutic settings is accelerating
Since the European Parliament (EP) on its latest resolution concerning the legal aspects of robot technology mentions, “human dignity and autonomy – both physical and psychological – is always to be respected,” in this subsection we address some points that challenge this cognitive side
We have identified some concrete legal and ethical aspects concerning the use and development of social robots in therapeutic settings
Summary
Abstract: The insertion of robotic and artificial intelligent (AI) systems in therapeutic settings is accelerating. There are currently legal and regulatory initiatives aiming at governing the impacts of robot technology These include private standards concerning robot technologies such as the ISO 13482:2014 Personal Care Robots, BS 8611:2016 Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems, and IEEE Ethically Aligned Design 2017 from the IEEE Global Initiative and Standard Association. Some disorders have their legal framework, like the Charter for Persons with Autism [8] These initiatives or in-force laws set guiding principles, these are often too general and abstract to give an adequate response to roboticists working on particular robots: what safeguards should be put in place to assure that robots interacting socially with humans for therapeutic or educational purposes follow the privacy-by-design principle?. Our contribution seeks to provide a thoughtful analysis of some issues about the use and development of social robots in therapy, in the hope that this can inform the policy debate and set the scene for further research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
