analiza aiqbench
This paper reframes social robots not as autonomous agents solving human problems, but as situated environmental elements that facilitate group sense-making around care and identity. By rejecting the "solutionist trap" of imitating human sociality, the authors propose designing constrained entities that act for communities without being socially entangled as individuals. This theoretical shift offers a new design paradigm for robotics in public spaces, moving beyond utility-focused autonomy toward relational capacity within shared environments.
A Robot Among People:From Social Imitation to the Social Becoming of Human Groups
arXiv:2609.12937v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.
Abstract:Robots designed to mediate human groups often fall into the solutionist trap: they are framed as sociable agents that fix problems such as conflict, disengagement, or lack of coordination. We suggest a different way of thinking. Rather than discrete agents, robots can be understood as situated elements of shared environments; catalysts and carriers of group experience whose meaning emerges through how people position, interpret, and interact with them. From this perspective, robots are not there to repair some ostensible dysfunctionality, but to enable group-level sense-making around care, norms, and identity. Our prior work on robotic street furniture suggests that this does not happen by imitating human sociality but by taking the shape of deliberately constrained, group-facing entities that happen and act for \textit{us} without being socially entangled as one of us. We thus understand robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity. This implies designing robots not in our image or for our utility, but grounded in our needs in being and becoming together.
Robotics (cs.RO); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2609.12937 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2609.12937v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.12937 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 272 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

AI Companion Robots Are Closing the Human Connection in Modern Homes
IEEE Spectrum · 25 aug. 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · 15 iul. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026