This work understands robots in public spaces not in terms of autonomy or intelligence, but as a relational capacity, which implies designing robots not in the authors' image or for their utility, but grounded in their 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.
This paper proposes pluralistic HRI, a framework for designing social robots that treat human diversity as a foundational design concern, and outlines how pluralistic HRI can inform design, evaluation, and deployment in diverse human communities.
Social robots are expected to operate across diverse environments, where similar arrangements can imply different socially appropriate actions, e.g., starting a conversation may be acceptable in a crowded home but disruptive in an office meeting. Because such norms and environments cannot all be anticipated in advance,...
“robotoid humanness” is introduced to name an emergent drift in which consumers come to experience themselves as most fluent, correct, or socially viable when they become compatible with machine legibility, machine pacing, and machine logic.
S. Ozturkcan, Jean-Paul Peronard, Inci Toral-Manson· AI & SOCIETY· 0 citations
This article examines cases from experiments on human–robot interaction in an educational context. Drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, I analyze interactions structured around the sequential organization of [question]–[answer]–[evaluation] to explore the ascribability of “trust” as a routine foundati...
Many robots are publicly deployed as predominantly functional machines, yet they are still perceived through a social lens and are expected to comply with basic social norms such as greeting. Designing recognizable greeting gestures for non-humanoid robots typically relies on movement specialists and a costly iterative...
Tom Hitron, Nevo Heimann Saadon, Guy Doron et al.· Companion Publication of the...· 0 citations
Current cognitive architectures for social robots, even when conceived as autonomous and adaptable, remain largely grounded in fully digital, von Neumann–style paradigms, where acquired knowledge is detached from individual experience. This contrasts with biological cognition, in which learning emerges from continuous,...
Dario Pasquali, Francesco Rea, Pietro G. Morasso et al.· Frontiers in Neurorobotics· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 7, 2026
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.