A paradigm shift for robot ethics: from HRI to human–robot–system interaction (HRSI)

A. van Wynsberghe, Shuhong Li
{"title":"A paradigm shift for robot ethics: from HRI to human–robot–system interaction (HRSI)","authors":"A. van Wynsberghe, Shuhong Li","doi":"10.2147/mb.s160348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Abstract: To date, the majority of work in the fields of human–robot interaction and robot ethics take as the starting point a dyadic interaction between a human and a robot. It is clear, however, that the impacts of robots in health care (understood as ranging from embodied robots and AI to avatars and chatbots) far exceed the individual with whom the robot is interacting. One of the most critical aspects of introducing robots in health care is how such a “bot” will restructure the health care system in a variety of ways: roles of health care staff will change once “bots” are delegated tasks, certain professions may no longer exist (eg, cleaning robots may remove the need for janitorial staff), the education of health care staff will need to include “bot” training, resources will be reallocated to account for the purchasing of “bots”, and the expertise of health care staff will be called into question (eg, when an AI algorithm predicts something that the physician does not). A well-developed care system that includes “bots” of all kinds should predict and balance the ethical impact equally between not only caregivers and receivers, but for the system within which these actors function. This article proposes a model for doing just this, the human–robot–system interaction (HRSI) model that allows for the ethical assessment of “bots” as mediators between a care receiver and a health care system. The HRSI model has important implications for revealing a new set of ethical issues in the introduction of “bots” in health care and in calling for new forms of empirical research to track possible (unintended) consequences related to the rearrangement of roles and responsibilities in the health care system resulting from the integration of health care “bots”.","PeriodicalId":91360,"journal":{"name":"Medicolegal and bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/mb.s160348","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicolegal and bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/mb.s160348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Abstract: To date, the majority of work in the fields of human–robot interaction and robot ethics take as the starting point a dyadic interaction between a human and a robot. It is clear, however, that the impacts of robots in health care (understood as ranging from embodied robots and AI to avatars and chatbots) far exceed the individual with whom the robot is interacting. One of the most critical aspects of introducing robots in health care is how such a “bot” will restructure the health care system in a variety of ways: roles of health care staff will change once “bots” are delegated tasks, certain professions may no longer exist (eg, cleaning robots may remove the need for janitorial staff), the education of health care staff will need to include “bot” training, resources will be reallocated to account for the purchasing of “bots”, and the expertise of health care staff will be called into question (eg, when an AI algorithm predicts something that the physician does not). A well-developed care system that includes “bots” of all kinds should predict and balance the ethical impact equally between not only caregivers and receivers, but for the system within which these actors function. This article proposes a model for doing just this, the human–robot–system interaction (HRSI) model that allows for the ethical assessment of “bots” as mediators between a care receiver and a health care system. The HRSI model has important implications for revealing a new set of ethical issues in the introduction of “bots” in health care and in calling for new forms of empirical research to track possible (unintended) consequences related to the rearrangement of roles and responsibilities in the health care system resulting from the integration of health care “bots”.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机器人伦理的范式转变:从人机交互到人机系统交互(HRSI)
荷兰代尔夫特代尔夫特理工大学价值观、技术与创新系摘要:迄今为止,人与机器人互动和机器人伦理领域的大多数工作都以人与机器人之间的二元互动为起点。然而,很明显,机器人在医疗保健中的影响(从嵌入式机器人和人工智能到化身和聊天机器人)远远超过了与机器人互动的个人。在医疗保健中引入机器人最关键的方面之一是,这样的“机器人”将如何以各种方式重组医疗保健系统:一旦“机器人”被委派任务,医疗保健人员的角色将发生变化,某些职业可能不再存在(例如,清洁机器人可能会消除对清洁人员的需求),医护人员的教育将需要包括“机器人”培训,资源将被重新分配以用于购买“机器人”,医护人员的专业知识将受到质疑(例如,当人工智能算法预测到医生没有预测到的东西时)。一个包括各种“机器人”的完善的护理系统不仅应该预测和平衡护理人员和接受者之间的道德影响,而且应该预测和均衡这些参与者所处的系统的道德影响。这篇文章提出了一个模型,即人-机器人-系统交互(HRSI)模型,该模型允许对“机器人”作为护理接受者和医疗保健系统之间的媒介进行道德评估。HRSI模型具有重要意义,可以揭示在医疗保健中引入“机器人”的一系列新的伦理问题,并呼吁进行新形式的实证研究,以跟踪与医疗保健“机器人”整合导致的医疗保健系统中角色和责任的重新安排相关的可能(意外)后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Surgical And Medical Error Claims In Ethiopia: Trends Observed From 125 Decisions Made By The Federal Ethics Committee For Health Professionals Ethics Review A paradigm shift for robot ethics: from HRI to human–robot–system interaction (HRSI) Knowledge of, and attitudes toward, codes of ethics and associated factors among medical doctors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia The prescription opioid epidemic: an update Bioethical Issues in Providing Financial Incentives to Research Participants.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1