Artificial intelligence and the future of otherness: what kind of other can an AI be for a human?

This paper proposes to consider the question “What kind of other can an AI be for a human?”, to analyse a set of ethical and societal challenges associated with a hypothetical massive deployment of “AIs as others” in society (social robots, artificial companions, chatbots with relational purposes su...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:AI & society Ročník 40; číslo 7; s. 5409 - 5423
Hlavný autor: Fernandez-Borsot, Gabriel
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: London Springer London 01.10.2025
Springer Nature B.V
Predmet:
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science
Control
Engineering Economics
Ethics
Interiority
Logistics
Marketing
Mechatronics
Methodology of the Social Sciences
Open Forum
Organization
Otherness
Performing Arts
Philosophy
Robotics
Robots
Analytical other
Artificial companions
Surveillance
Social robots
Otherness
Artificial intelligence
ISSN:0951-5666, 1435-5655
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:This paper proposes to consider the question “What kind of other can an AI be for a human?”, to analyse a set of ethical and societal challenges associated with a hypothetical massive deployment of “AIs as others” in society (social robots, artificial companions, chatbots with relational purposes such as friendship or romantic partnership, etc.). The proposed answer is that six features characterize “AIs as others”: serviceable, commodified, surveillant, authoritative, techno-standardized, and interiority-less. The implications of each feature are explored in depth, proposing three possible future scenarios (confusion, degradation, transformation), of which only the transformation scenario would be ethically acceptable. Through this analysis, a central thesis is developed, namely, that one of the main challenges of the transformation that “AIs as others” may catalyse is the adequate understanding of the otherness of AIs in relationship to humans. The conclusion is that for society to develop this adequate understanding, a new kind of “other” must be constructed, tailored to the characteristics of “AIs as others”. For it, a new term will be required (it is proposed “analytical other” [AO]), along with a suitable ontological status and a set of admissible roles. This socio-cultural creation of a new kind of other will require a transformation, a more mature and nuanced sense of otherness. The paper concludes by giving some recommendations to bring forth this transformation and proposing some questions and hypotheses that may inspire further research.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0951-5666
1435-5655
DOI:10.1007/s00146-025-02281-2