Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40606213›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2025

Prudential reasons for designing entitled chatbots: How robot "rights" can improve human well-being.

Guido Löhr, Matthew Dennis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guido LöhrVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7028-3515
Matthew DennisEindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Can robots or chatbots be moral patients? The question of robot rights is often linked to moral reasons like precautionary principles or the ability to suffer. We argue that we have prudential reasons for building robots that can at least hold us accountable (criticize us etc.) and that we have prudential reasons to build robots that can demand that we treat them with respect. This proposal aims to add nuance to the robot rights debate by answering a key question: Why should we want to build robots that could have rights in the first place? We argue that some degree of accountability in our social relationships contributes to our well-being and flourishing. The normativity ascribed to robots will increase their social and non-social functionalities from action coordination to more meaningful relationships. Having a robot that has a certain "standing" to hold us accountable can improve our epistemic standing and satisfy our desire for recognition.

Indexed as

ChatbotsDigital well-beingHuman flourishingLLMsRecognitionRobot rightsSocial robots

Identifiers

PMID40606213
PMCPMC12208972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.