done. Most of the children are willing to place robots and humans on an almost-level playing field and debate which can perform better in a given situation. To paraphrase, these pragmatic children say that if people are better at fun, let’s put them in charge of fun. If a robot will pay more attention to them than a distracted babysitter, let the robot babysit. If the future holds robots that behave lovingly, these children will be pleased to feel loved. And they are not dissuaded if they see significant differences between their way of thinking and how they imagine robots think. They are most likely to say that if these differences don’t interfere with how a robot performs its job, the differences are not worth dwelling on.
Children are not afraid to admit that when robots become caretakers, some things will be lost, things they will miss. But they also make it clear that when they say they will “miss” something (like having a mother at home to watch them when they are sick), it is not necessarily something they have or ever hope to. Children talk about parents who work all day and take night shifts. Conversations about families are as much about their elusiveness as about their resources.
On this almost-level playing field, attitudes about robotic companionship are something of a litmus test for how happy children are with those who care for them. So, children who have incompetent or boring babysitters are interested in robots. Those who have good babysitters would rather stick with what they have.
FROM MY REAL BABY TO MY REAL BABYSITTER
Jude is happy with his babysitter. “She is creative. She finds ways for us to have fun together.” He worries that a robot in her place might be too literal minded: “If parents say [to a person], ‘Take care of the kid,’ they [the person] won’t just go, ‘Okay, I’m just going to make sure you don’t get hurt.’ They’ll play with you; they’ll make sure you have fun too.” Jean-Baptiste agrees. Robot babysitters are “only in some ways alive.... It responds to you, but all it really thinks about is the job. If their job is making sure you don’t get hurt, they’re not going to be thinking about ice cream.” Or it might know that children like ice cream, but wouldn’t understand what ice cream was all about. How bad would this be? Despite his concerns, Jean-Baptiste says he “could love a robot if it was very, very nice to me.” It wouldn’t understand it was being nice, but for Jean-Baptiste, kindness is as kindness does.
Some children are open to a robot companion because people are so often disappointing. Colleen says, “I once had a babysitter just leave and go over to a friend’s house. A robot babysitter wouldn’t do that.” Even when they stayed around, her babysitters were preoccupied. “I would prefer to have a robot babysitter. . . . A robot would give me all its attention.” Octavio says that human babysitters are better than robots “if you are bored”—humans are able to make up better games. But they often get meals wrong: “What’s with the cereal for dinner? That’s boring. I should have pasta or chicken for dinner, not cereal.” Because of their “programming,” robots would know that cereal at night is not appropriate. Or, at least, says Octavio, robots would be programmed to take interest in his objections. In this way, the machines would know that cereal does not make a good dinner. Programming means that robots can be trusted. Octavio’s classmate Owen agrees. It is easier to trust a robot than a person: “You can only trust a person if you know who they are. You would have to know a person more [than a robot].... You wouldn’t have to know the robot, or you would get to know it much faster.”
Owen is not devaluing the “human kind” of trust, the trust built as people come through for each other. But he is saying that human trust can take a long time to develop, while robot trust is as simple as choosing
Children are not afraid to admit that when robots become caretakers, some things will be lost, things they will miss. But they also make it clear that when they say they will “miss” something (like having a mother at home to watch them when they are sick), it is not necessarily something they have or ever hope to. Children talk about parents who work all day and take night shifts. Conversations about families are as much about their elusiveness as about their resources.
On this almost-level playing field, attitudes about robotic companionship are something of a litmus test for how happy children are with those who care for them. So, children who have incompetent or boring babysitters are interested in robots. Those who have good babysitters would rather stick with what they have.
FROM MY REAL BABY TO MY REAL BABYSITTER
Jude is happy with his babysitter. “She is creative. She finds ways for us to have fun together.” He worries that a robot in her place might be too literal minded: “If parents say [to a person], ‘Take care of the kid,’ they [the person] won’t just go, ‘Okay, I’m just going to make sure you don’t get hurt.’ They’ll play with you; they’ll make sure you have fun too.” Jean-Baptiste agrees. Robot babysitters are “only in some ways alive.... It responds to you, but all it really thinks about is the job. If their job is making sure you don’t get hurt, they’re not going to be thinking about ice cream.” Or it might know that children like ice cream, but wouldn’t understand what ice cream was all about. How bad would this be? Despite his concerns, Jean-Baptiste says he “could love a robot if it was very, very nice to me.” It wouldn’t understand it was being nice, but for Jean-Baptiste, kindness is as kindness does.
Some children are open to a robot companion because people are so often disappointing. Colleen says, “I once had a babysitter just leave and go over to a friend’s house. A robot babysitter wouldn’t do that.” Even when they stayed around, her babysitters were preoccupied. “I would prefer to have a robot babysitter. . . . A robot would give me all its attention.” Octavio says that human babysitters are better than robots “if you are bored”—humans are able to make up better games. But they often get meals wrong: “What’s with the cereal for dinner? That’s boring. I should have pasta or chicken for dinner, not cereal.” Because of their “programming,” robots would know that cereal at night is not appropriate. Or, at least, says Octavio, robots would be programmed to take interest in his objections. In this way, the machines would know that cereal does not make a good dinner. Programming means that robots can be trusted. Octavio’s classmate Owen agrees. It is easier to trust a robot than a person: “You can only trust a person if you know who they are. You would have to know a person more [than a robot].... You wouldn’t have to know the robot, or you would get to know it much faster.”
Owen is not devaluing the “human kind” of trust, the trust built as people come through for each other. But he is saying that human trust can take a long time to develop, while robot trust is as simple as choosing
Similar Books
