ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2023
How could we make a social robot? A virtual bargaining approach.
Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introduction to 'Cognitive artificial intelligence'.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Article
- Symbols and grounding in large language models.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What is required to allow an artificial agent to engage in rich, human-like interactions with people? I argue that this will require capturing the process by which humans continually create and renegotiate 'bargains' with each other. These hidden negotiations will concern topics including who should do what in a particular interaction, which actions are allowed and which are forbidden, and the momentary conventions governing communication, including language. Such bargains are far too numerous, and social interactions too rapid, for negotiation to be conducted explicitly. Moreover, the very process of communication presupposes innumerable momentary agreements concerning the meaning of communicative signals, thus raising the threat of circularity. Thus, the improvised 'social contracts' that govern our interactions must be implicit. I draw on the recent theory of virtual bargaining, according to which social partners mentally simulate a process of negotiation, to outline how these implicit agreements can be made, and note that this viewpoint raises substantial theoretical and computational challenges. Nonetheless, I suggest that these challenges must be met if we are ever to create AI systems that can work collaboratively alongside people, rather than serving primarily as valuable special-purpose computational tools. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Cognitive artificial intelligence'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.