Jose Chitala

College Writing 109C

Professor Jordan Ruyle
October 5, 2018
Essay #2: Summary/Argumentative Essay
In the article ​My Friend the Robot, ​author Kathleen Richardson centers on the
technological development of companionate robots. The primary question posed in Richardson’s
article is whether or not it is possible to create a robot that could effectively bond with depressed
or isolated humans, especially the elderly. Additionally, Richardson introduces several other
questions that have emerged as part of this technological effort. One such question -and the
question that I will respond to- is whether or not “...the very process of humanising machines [is]
enough to call into question the boundary between human and machine…” (Richardson 60-61).
In other words, Richardson’s asks whether the aim to develop robots that can effectively act as
companions to humans would entail giving robots the same considerations as humans.
I would disagree with the concept that the boundary between humans and machines can
be blurred for two reasons. The first reason for this belief is that, in my view, robots cannot
match the complex and spontaneous nature of human thoughts, emotions and behaviors. This
idea is in accordance with a statement included in Richardson’s article from Kerstin Dautenhahn,
a professor of artificial intelligence. Alluding to the nature of people's relationships with their
cars, Dautenhahn emphasizes that machines are not sentient (Richardson 47-50). Dautenhahn’s
statement led me to recall knowledge from a course titled “General Psychology”, specifically
knowledge about how humans experience emotions. For one, human emotion is stored in a
specific part of the brain, and is part of a complex associational network involving the triggering
of multiple synapses. Secondly, different people’s anatomical makeup leads to a high degree of
spontaneity and variety in the display of emotions. Because of this, I believe that human emotion
would be difficult to replicate through mechanical means, and therefore, in my view, the lines
between human nature and robot nature could run closely parallel to each other, but would not
likely reach a point of intersection.
A second reason why I would disagree with the idea that the boundary between humans
and robots can be blurred is because human existence does not take place in a vacuum.
Therefore, incorporating robots to human society would not happen on neutral terms and would
require radical social change. For example, the conventions of everyday interactions would
change, interactions such as those which occur at social gatherings and in traffic, to name a few.
It would require imaginative reach to envision a party where robots are required to RSVP in
advance. This example illustrates how while seemingly mundane and inconsequential, changing
everyday conventions would nonetheless require adapting to practices that we as members of
society can barely fathom. Ultimately, my point is that the fact that it is difficult to imagine these
scenarios in practice without making changes in the structure of how we interact with the world
around us favors skepticism of human-robot symmetry.
 On top of changes to everyday interactions, which happen at the micro-level and can be
considered largely inconsequential -parties and social gatherings for example- there would also
require changes to higher-level spheres within society. Two such spheres would be the job
market and the law. Regarding the job market, it is well-known that jobs such as those in food
service -for example hosting, waitressing, and cooking- are being scouted for fulfillment by
robots. This would cause a massive reduction in job prospects, and would likely require the
growth of another feasible labor area for those human laborers that are displaced. Regarding law,
Richardson presents the point of “robot ethics” (Richardson 53). This point involves
incorporating robots into the justice system, and which legal considerations and rights would be
granted to robots. These rights and considerations would have significant consequences for
humans, as a new set of crimes would emerge, effecting the amount of people assigned to a
sentence, and the amount of money entering the justice system. To summarize my second area of
disagreement with Richardson’s question, I believe that the complex and pre-established society
in which humans interact would make it extremely difficult to assimilate robots without
involving some type of radical social change.
In conclusion, as to the question of whether attempts at developing an effective
companion robot could lead to robots transversing the borderline separating man and machine, I
take the side of those who believe that this is not possible. Hard sciences such as biology and
psychology illustrate the complexity and spontaneity of human thought and emotional processes,
while a person’s daily commute to work illustrates how whilst we can rely on machines like our
cars, they are nonetheless mechanical and non-sentient. Additionally, from a social perspective. I
believe that coexistence between humans and robots equals would require radical changes to the
social conventions of both the sphere of micro-level, everyday interactions -such as how we
interact at parties or in traffic- and in more macro-level spheres such as the job market and law.
Ultimately, the reasons for why human nature and robot nature would not intersect can be
summed-up in two words: complexity and spontaneity. Nevertheless, the two aforementioned
words are often what triggers science to rise to the challenge.