FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2398987589> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2398987589 abstract "The sudden escalation in informational and computational technologies is quickly making things possible that were impossible just a few years ago.As these new possibilities become realities,very real ethical dilemmas arise which are challenging the very foundations of ethics,traditionally conceived. One need only consider the 3D printers that are about to hit the market and that will allow individuals to print working firearms at will. Such a possibility will, no doubt, have policy makers wondering how to handle the situation in the absence of existing laws to cover such an inevitability. Introduction: Challenges are mounting on other fronts as well, issues with predator drones and autonomous weaponry being among them. Such issues may well make the topic of this issue seem trivial. It is not. For instance, one of the ethical issues attached to affective computing reaches to the foundations of ethics by challenging our common sense belief that truth-telling is a value and that deception is simply wrong, at least in most contexts. In brief, the problem can be stated this way: If robots are to be widely adopted in society, they need to be like us. Thus, giving them simulated emotions seems essential. For instance, when it comes to the use of robotic pets in eldercare, lifeless, unaffective robots would be poorly suited to the task for which they are designed. At the same time, to give such robotic pets the ability to act in such a way as to make us feel good seems to be simply deceptive. If deception is wrong simpliciter, then so are simulated emotions; but if the use of simulated emotions is wrong, then implementing the affective qualities needed to make some machines able to function as needed would also seem wrong. Something is either amiss with our common understanding of the ethics of deception, or research in affective computing, which often amounts to designing machines precisely in order to deceive us, is misguided. The situation is not limited to such innocuous creatures as mere pets either, though when we realize that a robotic pet may simultaneously be a weaponor a spy, the issues start to compound. In the first paper of this section,“Are Emotional Robots Deceptive?”, Mark Coeckelbergh hits the central issue just mentioned head on. Taking a common sense approach, Coeckelbergh notes that robots must be suitably designed to respond appropriately in such a way that humans. ---------------------------------------------- Kuljit Singh is with the Department of Information Technology and Management . The Punjab Technical University,focuses on International Conferences and Journal Papers. E-mail: kuljitsingh333@gmail.com For information on obtaining reprints of this article, please send e-mail to: kuljitsingh333@gmail.com understand what is genuinely being communicated in order order to facilitate open cross-entity communication. However,this must be done carefully in such a way that humans do not dismiss robot communication with what he calls a “deception response.” In “Red-Pill Robots Only, Please,” Bringsjord and Clark challenge approaches like Coeckelbergh’s. Playing off the Matrix of movie fame,blue-pill robots are engineered to deceive, and embracing them will lead to a cascade of moral issues by pushing our society further away from values associated with truth toward those associated with pleasure. Our love for “ digital illusions ” is consonant with their argument and may indicate that there isalready cause for concern, even prior to the prevalence of affective,blue-pill machines. Sullins keeps us on the pleasure track with “Robots, Love and Sex: The Ethics of Building a Love Machine.” Admittedly, something always sounds a little goofy and unimportant, if not slightly embarrassing, when raising the topic of sex robots, though few have any doubt that they will be among us in record numbers. Sullins invites us to take the issue seriously by putting forth the notion of “erotic wisdom,” while simultaneously arguing that we must lay down some constraints when it comes to designing machines that can manipulate human psychology at sucha deep level. Steering a sensible course between the issues, Cowie argues in “The Good Our Field Can Hope to Do, the Harm It Should Avoid” that, while most affective applications are morally neutral, simulated affects might well amount to a kind of deception. However, the situation is not as simple as good as good versus bad since there are several moral positives that can come from research in this area. This paper enumerates some of the moral positives and negatives that pertain here to underscore the balancing act that researchers must undergo when approaching the design of affective machinery. In “The Affect Dilemma for Artificial Agents: Should We Develop Affective Artificial Agents,” Scheutz takes a little bit of a different angle, noting that robots without affects and affective sensibilities may well cause more harm than those with them, but this also transforms them into patients for our moral regard. In this paper, Scheutz argues that we must nonetheless build them offering five reasons to do so before closing with a brief enumeration of the challenges ahead. Finally, Guarini offers a critique of my own work in ethical theory with his paper “Conative Dimensions ofMachine Ethics: A Defense of Duty.” I have argued elsewhere that ethics, traditionally conceived, hangs on a fundamental contest between our affective desires and our sense of obligation; as International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 4, April-2013 1422 ISSN 2229-5518" @default.
• W2398987589 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2398987589 creator A5009671076 @default.
• W2398987589 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2398987589 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2398987589 title "Editorial for the Special Section on Ethics and Affective Computing" @default.
• W2398987589 cites W2094873755 @default.
• W2398987589 cites W2129278597 @default.
• W2398987589 cites W2135942078 @default.
• W2398987589 cites W2152507484 @default.
• W2398987589 cites W2167671111 @default.
• W2398987589 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2398987589 type Work @default.
• W2398987589 sameAs 2398987589 @default.
• W2398987589 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2398987589 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2398987589 hasAuthorship W2398987589A5009671076 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C2779267917 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C59519942 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConcept C90509273 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C108827166 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C119857082 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C127413603 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C144024400 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C154945302 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C15744967 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C17744445 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C199539241 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C2776291640 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C2779267917 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C38652104 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C39549134 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C41008148 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C54355233 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C55587333 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C59519942 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C86803240 @default.
• W2398987589 hasConceptScore W2398987589C90509273 @default.
• W2398987589 hasLocation W23989875891 @default.
• W2398987589 hasOpenAccess W2398987589 @default.
• W2398987589 hasPrimaryLocation W23989875891 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W1024830156 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W1542116679 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W1598700562 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2044395070 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2091789364 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2098845092 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W223684290 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W223877553 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W226242243 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W248470317 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2497878767 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2502450738 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2604974365 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W275645159 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2794062168 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W2802751320 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W3122698187 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W3176746071 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W3201311910 @default.
• W2398987589 hasRelatedWork W89592411 @default.
• W2398987589 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2398987589 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2398987589 magId "2398987589" @default.
• W2398987589 workType "article" @default.