Robot Bem Legal

Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E et al (2009) Measuring instruments for anthropomorphism, animacy, sympathy, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71. Fosch-Villaronga E, Albo-Canals J (2019) I`ll take care of you, says the robot. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):77-93. In another study with mobile robots, collisions were performed with a six-year-old child dummy [20] and with a 10-year-old dummy [21]. Results for masses of 80, 100, 200 kg and velocities of 0,55 and 1,66 m/s showed a low probability of injury at the AIS 1+ (minor injuries, e.g. superficial laceration or rib fracture) and AIS 2+ (moderate injury, e.g. moderate skull fracture) scale based on the HIC results, NIJ and CC. All of these results require injury criteria that better match the robot`s specific goals and applications to avoid minimizing or exaggerating risks. Palacin J et al (2004) Construction of a mobile robot for cleaning floors in domestic environments. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 53(5):1418-1424 “We`ve come a long way,” said Ryan Calo, one of the conference organizers and a law professor at the University of Washington who specializes in areas such as privacy, artificial intelligence and robots.

Wang S, Christensen HI (2018) TritonBot: first lessons learned from the use of an autonomous tourist guide robot in the long term. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robots and Human Interactive Communication, Nanjing, China, 27-31 August 2018 Fentanes JP, Lacerda B, Krajnik T, Hawes N, Hanheide M (2015) Now or later? Predict and maximize the success of navigation actions thanks to many years of experience. In: Proceedings – IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 1112-1117. Argall BD, Billard AG (2010) A survey of tactile human-robot interactions. Auton robot Syst 58(10):1159–1176. Implementing human-sensitive navigation algorithms – including social norms and proxemic rules – as well as equipping robots with transparency interfaces to disclose robot actions (current and future) can help reduce the dangers of use in public spaces. Examples of implementation can be found in [120, 121]. Robotic movements are generally considered dangerous because of the physical damage they can cause: crushing, collisions, cuts, abrasions, etc. [34]. However, in this subsection, we look at the psychological dangers caused by robotic movements to users and pedestrians. Hebesberger D, Koertner T, Gisinger C, Pripfl J, Dondrup C (2016).

Lessons learned from using a long-term autonomous robot as a physiotherapy companion for older adults with dementia: a mixed-methods study. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp. 27-34. Pacchierotti E, Christensen H, Jensfelt P (2005) Embodied social inter-action for service robots in fluway environments. Field Serv Robot, 476–487 Imagine a semi-autonomous motorized wheelchair driven by a person with limited mobility but intact perception and perception in the crowded departures area of an airport. As carrying luggage in a wheelchair can be problematic, a humanoid robot follows Pepper to transport the luggage. The humanoid robot is fully autonomous, but can interact with humans through text-to-speech and vision (with built-in camera and facial/gesture/facial recognition system). The electric wheelchair operates in semi-autonomous mode, i.e. the user`s inputs are combined with the robot`s inputs from its sensors to help while driving. In semi-autonomous mode, the wheelchair stops when the driver stops typing.

Otherwise, the wheelchair regulates its speed and moves away independently of obstacles. When in contact with passers-by, the wheelchair reduces its speed and reacts flexibly. The humanoid robot tracks the wheelchair via its on-board sensors (vision, sonar) and communicates wirelessly with the wheelchair. The wheelchair and the humanoid robot must remain within two meters of each other. Otherwise, communication will be lost and the wheelchair user will have to trace the humanoid robot. In the last scenario, we will use another robot, the runfun, designed for outdoor activities. Sauppé A, Mutlu B (2015) The social impact of a robot colleague in an industrial environment. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI `15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp.

3613-3622. Mansfeld N, Hamad M, Becker M, Marin AG, Haddadin S (2018) Safety map: a unified representation of biomechanical impact data and instantaneous dynamic properties of the robot. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 3(3):1880–1887 Ivanov SH, Webster C, Berezina K (2017) Robot adoption and service automation by tourism and hospitality companies. Rev Turismo Desenvol 27(28):1501-1517 Advances in the development of human-aware robots now make it possible to use robots in environments inhabited by humans. In recent years, steps have been taken in this direction with the introduction of autonomous cars [1], drones and ground robots for last-mile delivery services [2, 3], tourist assistant robots and guides for visitors [4, 5] and autonomous wheelchairs [6]. The advantage of using robots for public use is that a larger population can benefit from advances in automation. However, it brings with it new dangers that can endanger our daily lives. On the other hand, the degree of realism of a robotic phenomenon (anthropomorphism or zoomorphism) can be worrying because of the feeling of social presence generated in the spectator [84], which could lead to the humanization of the robot, hence the development of forms of emotional attachment to it [72], especially by vulnerable people. such as children, the elderly and the disabled (see scenario 1). Li JJ, Ju W, Reeves B (2017) Touching a mechanical body: tactile contact with the body parts of a humanoid robot is physiologically exciting. J Hum-Rob Interact 6(3):118–130. Scenario 4: The semi-autonomous wheelchair moves in a densely populated environment.

Main Menu