Әлеуметтік роботтар: даму тарихы мен қағидалары

A social robot is an autonomous robot that interacts and communicates with humans or other autonomous physical agents by following social behaviors and rules attached to its role. Like other robots, a social robot is physically embodied (avatars or on screen synthetic social characters are not embodied and thus distinct). Some synthetic social agents are designed with a screen to represent the head or 'face' to dynamically communicate with users. In these cases, the status as a social robot depends on the form of the 'body' of the social agent; if the body has and uses some physical motors and sensor abilities, then the system could be considered a robot.

While robots have often been described as possessing social qualities (see for example the tortoises developed by William Grey Walter in the 1950s), social robotics is a fairly recent branch of robotics. Since the early 1990s artificial intelligence and robotics researchers have developed robots which explicitly engage on a social level. The evolution of social robots began with autonomous robots designed to have little to no interaction with humans. Essentially, they were designed to take on what humans could not. Technologically advanced robots were sent out to handle hazardous conditions and the assignments that could potentially put humans in danger, like exploring the deep oceans or the surface of Mars. Advancing these original intentions, robots are continually being developed to be inserted into human related settings to establish their social aspect and access their influence on human interactions. Over time, social robots have been advanced to begin to have their own role in society. Designing an autonomous social robot is particularly challenging, as the robot needs to correctly interpret people's action and respond appropriately, which is currently not yet possible. Moreover, people interacting with a social robot may hold very high expectancies of its capabilities, based on science fiction representations of advanced social robots. As such, many social robots are partially or fully remote controlled to simulate advanced capabilities. This method of (often covertly) controlling a social robot is referred to as a Mechanical Turk or Wizard of Oz, after the character in the L. Frank Baum book. Wizard of Oz studies are useful in social robotics research to evaluate how people respond to social robots.

A robot is defined in the International Standard of Organization as a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for performance of a variety of tasks. As a subset of robots, social robots perform any or all of these processes in the context of a social interaction. It interacts socially with humans or evokes social responses from them. The nature of the social interactions is immaterial and may range from relatively simple supportive tasks, such as passing tools to a worker, to complex expressive communication and collaboration, such as assistive healthcare. Hence, social robots are asked to work together with humans in collaborative workspaces. Moreover, social robots start following humans into much more personal settings like home, health care, and education. Social interactions are likely to be cooperative, but the definition is not limited to this situation. Moreover, uncooperative behavior can be considered social in certain situations. The robot could, for example, exhibit competitive behavior within the framework of a game. The robot could also interact with a minimum or no communication. It could, for example, hand tools to an astronaut working on a space station. However, it is likely that some communication will be necessary at some point. Two suggested ultimate requirements for social robots are the Turing Test to determine the robot's communication skills and Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics for its behavior. The usefulness to apply these requirements in a real world application, especially in the case of Asimov's laws, is still disputed and may not be possible at all). However, a consequence of this viewpoint is that a robot that only interacts and communicates with other robots would not be considered to be a social robot: Being social is bound to humans and their society which defines necessary social values, norms and standards. This results in a cultural dependency of social robots since social values, norms and standards differ between cultures. This brings us directly to the last part of the definition. A social robot must interact within the social rules attached to its role. The role and its rules are defined through society. For example, a robotic butler for humans would have to comply with established rules of good service. It should be anticipating, reliable and most of all discreet. A social robot must be aware of this and comply with it. However, social robots that interact with other autonomous robots would also behave and interact according to non human conventions. In most social robots the complexity of human to human interaction will be gradually approached with the advancement of the technology of androids (a form of humanoid robots) and implementation of a variety of more human like communication skills

Researches have investigated user engagement with a robot companion. Literature present different models regarding this concern. An example is a framework that models both causes and effects of engagement: features related to the user's non verbal behaviour, the task and the companion's affective reactions to predict children's level of engagement. Many people are uneasy about interacting socially with a robot and, in general, people tend to prefer smaller robots to large humanoid robots. They also prefer robots to do tasks like cleaning the house rather than providing companionship. In verbal social interactions people tend to share less information with robots than with humans. Despite initial reluctance to interact with social robots, exposure to a social robot may decrease uncertainty and increase willingness to interact with the robot, and research shows that over time people speak for a longer time and share more information in their disclosures to a social robot. If people have an interaction with a social robot that is seen as playful (as opposed to focused on completing a task or being social) they may be more likely to engage with the robot in the future.

The increasingly widespread use of more advanced social robots is one of several phenomena expected to contribute to the technological posthumanization of human societies, through which process “a society comes to include members other than ‘natural’ biological human beings who, in one way or another, contribute to the structures, dynamics, or meaning of the society.”

Social robots have been used increasingly in healthcare settings and recent research has been exploring the applicability of social robots as mental health interventions for children. A scoping review analyzed the impacts that robots such as Nao, Paro, Huggable, Tega and Pleo have on children in various intervention settings. Social robots can be used as tools for distracting children from procedures, like getting a shot, and have demonstrated the ability to reduce stress and pain experience. As many individuals with autism spectrum disorder tend to prefer predictable interactions, robots may be a viable option for social interactions. In their study, Moro et al. (2018) utilized 3 social robots types—a human like robot, Casper; a character like Robot, The Ed robot; and a tablet—to help six individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment make a cup of tea. In some cases, informed consent by proxy can be utilized, however the benefits and risks should be weighed before conducting any research. Pepper was also used in assessing the feelings of safety and security the robot provided for older individuals. For these individuals, security is associated with trust and confidence developed by interpersonal relationships. Using videos and questionnaires, both safety and security ended up on the positive side for the participants and how they felt. But it also revealed that even though that the robots are ready to be used, they do need human assistants, they cannot replace the human work force but they can assist them and give them new possibilities. for students, in public, and at the workplace. Robotic mental well being coaches can perform practices such as positive psychology Users' perceptions of robotic mental well being coaches have been shown to depend on the robot's appearance. The ethics of social robots' use in healthcare should also be mentioned. One potential risk of social robots is deception—there may be an expectation that the robot can perform certain functions when it actually cannot. The video capability of some robots is a potential avenue for social interaction and increasing accessibility of medical assessments. These robots can play a crucial role in alleviating pieces of tasks and the overall work demand for individual employees. In instances like Europe has been facing with a lack of labor force within the service industry, social robots play a crucial role in entering and restoring relatively normal workplace functionality. SoftBank Robotics has developed multiple social, semi humanoid robots which are frequently used in research, including Pepper and Nao. Pepper is used both commercially and academically, as well as being used by consumers in over a thousand homes in Japan. Other notable examples of social robots include ASIMO by Honda, Jibo, Moxi, and Kaspar, designed by University of Hertfordshire to help children with autism learn responses from the robot through games and interactive play. Anki's robots Cozmo and Vector also fell into the category of social robots, but all were shut down between 2018 and 2019. Social robots do not necessarily have to be humanoid. The most famous example of a non humanoid social robot is Paro the seal.