SEMINAR PAPER ABSTRACT SUBMISSION

SUBMITTED BY-
PRATIMA SHARMA
500070166
R129218023

SUBMITTED TO-
Mrs. VAISHALI SINGH
 HUMANIZATION OF ROBOTS AND CITIZENSHIP

ABSTRACT

What does it mean when a robot is granted citizenship? What does it mean when humans aren’t created
equal anymore? What happens legally or philosophically when the lines between human and machine are
less and less distinct? We may not live in that world just yet, but we will be living there soon. Last year,
in what was widely derided as a publicity stunt, Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to an android.
As far as India is concerned, the penetration level of artificial intelligence remains low, but is
steadily expected to increase over a period of time. Under the Constitution of India and the
Citizenship Act, 1955, only “persons” are capable of having citizenship. India has not yet recognized
personhood rights of entities comprising artificial intelligence. In P.A. Jacob v. The Superintendent
of Police, Kottayam & Anr., the Kerala High Court observed that a right can only belong to a human
personality, and not to a mechanical device. It is not permissible to upgrade a mechanical device to a
human faculty; thus, a robot cannot enjoy the freedoms and rights listed under the Constitution of
India. This observation was reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in 2005 in the case of In Re:
Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws for restricting use of loudspeaker and high-volume
producing sound systems. However, with the growing scope of artificial intelligence, whether this
observation of the Indian Courts would be applicable in the future is an open question, only to be
determined in due course of time.

(Keywords; citizenship, machine, artificial intelligence, persons, legal status)

INTRODUCTION
The definition of artificial intelligence in the context of robots has been considered
problematic because there are many different interpretations of intelligence, and human
intelligence itself is difficult to define. Embodied intelligence, including gestures,
postures and movements, has proven particularly cumbersome for designers of artificial
intelligence1. This is the case with the Sophia robot, although it is not clear how much
artificial intelligence and indeed how much intelligence has been involved in its famous
performances.
One thing that seems to unite many scholars that study robots is the goal of one day
creating a fully autonomous human-like robot capable of mimicking all human behaviors
and emotions. Advances in artificial intelligence and robotics are beginning to make what
was once a thing of science fiction seem not only possible, but probable. To be fair,
research has already demonstrated that humans do not need much in the way of
prompting to treat and interact with technology as if it was human. Yet, the current trend
toward designing robots to be personal assistants, companions and even lovers may have
unintended consequences that we have not fully considered.

HUMANIZING SOCIAL ROBOTS

By humanization of social robots, we mean the effort to make robots that more closely
mimic human appearance and behavior, including the display of humanlike cognitive and
emotional states. This can be performed through the implementation of social (e.g.,
language, nonverbal behavior, personality, emotions, and emp athy), ethical (e.g., moral,
values), and spiritual competences (e.g., religion, culture, and tradition) (Hashim & Yussof,
2017). The humanlike appearance of robots does not only refer to bipedality but to other
physical characteristics such as gender 2
The use of the term “humanization” avoids the often-made confusion between an
anthropomorphic form (a nonliving object that reflects human -like physical qualities; see
Disalvo & Gemperle, 2003) and anthropomorphism (the process by which humans attribute
human thoughts, intentions, and emotions to animals, objects or artifacts; 3 Thus, whereas
an anthropomorphic form is the product of design, anthropomorphism is the product of a
cognitive process.
Research and projects devoted to the humanization of social robots have followed two
approaches. The bottom-up approach to achieve a believable agent, irrespective of its

1
By artificial intelligence we mean ‘intelligence displayed or simulated by code (algorithms) or
machines’ (Coeckelbergh 2020, 64), which, when embedded in a robot, is sometimes called ‘embodied
artificial intelligence’ (69).
2
(i.e., implementation of male and female phenotypic attributes) and race (e.g., appearance of
Caucasian, Asian) (e.g., Bina48, Geminoid F, Sofia, and Geminoid DK).
3
see Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007).
appearance, relies on implementing a combination of elements of the human body (e.g.,
eyebrows, lips, chin, hands, and limbs) and micro behaviors (e.g., eye gaze, tone of voice,
facial expressions, and gestures) that are thought to be important for social interactions and
communication (e.g., Probo, Kismet, and MDS). In the top-down approach, the purpose is
to produce an autonomous replica of a human (e.g., Repliée Q2 and Actroid DER). This
latter approach is more human-centric. Indeed, for the top-down approach replicating
human interaction is the end in itself, whereas for the bottom-up approach is a way to
improve HRI.

THEOROTICAL BASIS FOR HUMANIZATION OF ROBOTS

The human ability to attribute intention and infer causality is well described in the scientific
literature. From Heider and Simmel (1944) showing that people build “personality models”
to explain nonlinear movements of geometric figures on a screen, to the knowledge that
people mindlessly apply social norms to their interaction with computers (Nass &
Moon, 2000; Nass, Steuer, & Tauber, 1994), examples of the attribution of human-like
minds are plentiful. The ability to acknowledge that others have the capacity to understand,
infer and attribute affect, motives and goals, just like we do, is termed theory of mind
(ToM; Carruthers & Smith, 1996). The capacity to attribute a mind to others is considered
central to human functioning, since it paves the way for the pos sibility of a common ground
for interaction.
Human preferences for anthropocentric interactions are frequently presented as the reason
underlying the humanization of robots (e.g., Duffy, 2006), that is, if people mindlessly
apply human–human interaction rules to interactions with nonhuman beings and objects,
then humanizing robots will result in more natural and efficient HRIs.
In this section we offer a brief presentation of some of the socio-cognitive processes that
contribute to the humanization of robots.
INFERRING AGENCY FROM BIOLOGICAL MOTION
People can infer rates and trait intentions grounded on minimum information. Exploration
on the recognition of natural stir shows that people can fete gender, personality traits,
feelings, and indeed complex conduct similar as dancing (Blackemore & Decety, 2001) just
by watching a film of an actor with lights attached to the main joints of the body while
moving in a dark terrain. As similar, it isn't surprising that exploration with robotic
appliances like the Roomba, the vacuum drawing robot, has plant that druggies describing
its arbitrary movements as gentle or clumsy and attributing the Roomba a kind of proto-
personality (e.g., Fink, Bauwens, Kaplan, & Dillenbourg, 2013; Forlizzi, 2007).

Watching others' geste was also plant to grease (motor resonance) or disturb (motor
hindrance) the bystander's own conduct (Brass, Bekkering, & Prinz, 2001; Jeannerod,
2001). Therefore, motor resonance plays a major part in understanding others' conduct and
performing common conditioning. A study comparing the goods of different types of
movement (naturals. mechanical) and agent type (artificial robot, creatural robot, or
another mortal) plant that the brain processes natural and biological movements else.
Concerning the effect of observed agent type, the study plant that the creatural ro bot
produced motor hindrance. Still, when the artificial robot arm nearly reproduced the speed
of a natural stir it produced motor hindrance (Kuperberg teal., 2011). In short, given
people's capability to identify particular rates and intentions from minimal movement cues,
it's pivotal to consider not only a robots' physical appearance, but also how it'll move and
interact with mortal mates. Li and Chignell (2011) handed an illustration of a robot which
successfully used head and arm movements to convey emotional countries.
Benefits of humanizing robots

To be clear, there have always been benefits to humanizing technology. Research has
shown that humans are much more likely to trust robots they view as more human [2,3].
Convincing humans to trust robots is still an important barrier to the adoption of rob ots in
many areas of society [4]. However, there are also drawbacks to the humanization of robots.
Unfortunately, these drawbacks have received much less attention. This is almost certainly
due to our preoccupation with the challenges associated with promo ting the adoption of
robots. Yet, it may now be time to consider some of the problems with humanizing robots.
The problems with humanizing robots the problem with humanizing robots can be
organized around three basic premises.
• Humanization impacts our emotions toward robots. Our emotions toward robots are
likely to range from feelings like “fondness” when robots are less humanized to
deeper and stronger emotions such as “love” when robots are more humanized.
• Humanization impacts our expectations of robots. The more humanized robots are
the more we expect them to take on human responsibilities in our society.
• Humanization impacts our expectations of how others should interact with robots.
Our view of what is or what is not appropriate use of robots varies by the extent to
which we view them as humans.
All three of these premises have important implications for our society discussed below.

Robots as Co-Workers and Friends

Examples of the Implications of Premise 1: Can the bond between humans and robots be
too strong? Robots are often deployed in place of humans to perform dangerous tasks [5].
As robots become humanized, will humans be less willing to sacrifice their robot c o-
workers. Evidence of this has already been found in military bomb disposal teams. A recent
study found that the more soldiers were attached to their military bomb disposal robot the
less willing they were to send it in harm’s way [6]. This of course unde rmines the robots
intended use which is to minimize the loss of human life. Other questions remain, such as:
What is the potential long term emotional impacts of intentionally sending your robot co-
worker to their death? Should we expect humans to feel a s imilar sense of loss and guilt
when losing a human worker? Robots are also being designed as personal home health care
assistants, companions and friends. As mentioned earlier, there are clear benefits to
designing such robots to be as humanlike as possible. But what are the long-term
ramifications of such relationships for humans? Are these potentially healthy relationships
or inherently problematic and representative of human behavior detrimental to that
individual and society as a whole? In other words, do we know if such relationships are
likely to be more harmful than helpful? Answers to such questions would seem to be a vital
prerequisite to determining how humanlike robots should be or what, if any, roles should
be off limits to robots.

Robots as Citizens
The more humanized robots become the more we might expect them to assume human
responsibilities in our society. Recently, Bill Gates proposed a temporary robot tax for
companies that employ them to replace human workers 4. Although this idea was quickly
dismissed, consider another alternative. Imagine taxing robots permanently in much the
same way we do humans. This idea seems far-fetched now because many of the robots’
replacing humans come in the physical form of faceless machines with robotic arms. But,
imagine looking across a manufacturing plant and seeing hundreds of fully autonomous
human-like robots at work stations once occupied by human employees. Picturing
manufacturing plants teaming with such robots may make the idea of taxing robots seem
much more plausible to the average taxpayer. The idea of taxing a non-human entity is not
itself new. For example, corporations are artificial entities that legally exist separate from
the individuals who own or run them. Corporations pay taxes over and above t hose paid by
individuals own or run them. What is clear is that the mere physical appearance of a robot’s

4 Delaney KJ (2017) The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates, Quartz Media, UK. 8. Wakefield
J (2017) Call for a ban on child sex robots, BBC News UK.
changes our expectations about what is appropriate and what is inappropriate behavior with
them.

Humanoid’s robots have been gaining popularity in India for quite some time now.
Although the country is still catching up with the developments in artificial intelligence
and robotics as compared to others, Indian startups, as well as the government, are working
at a rapid pace to integrate new-age technologies. According to IFR research, robot sales
in India increased by 27 percent to a new peak of 2,627 units in India — almost the same
as in Thailand. Another survey claims that India ranks third in implementing ro botic
automation.

Robocop
Hyderabad-based AI and ML startup H-Bots Robotics has developed a police robot to assist
in handling the law, order, and traffic management. The life-sized robot, which was
deployed last year in Hyderabad, is equipped with cameras and an array of different sensors
like ultrasonic, proximity and temperature sensors. The robot is designed to protect and
secure places like offices, malls, airports, signal posts and other public spaces and can take
care of security if deployed autonomously. Reportedly, the Robocop can diffuse bombs
too. The beta version robot is made in India using all Indian components.
KEMPA
• Passengers visiting Bengaluru airport may soon be greeted by a special robot
assistant. Built to suit the needs of the Kempegowda International Airport, the little
bot assistant, named KEMPA, will answers queries of confused passengers in
English as well as Kannada.
• The humanoid is built on AI by a Bengaluru-based startup Sirena Technologies. The
advanced humanoid is completely designed and manufactured in Bengaluru.
• KEMPA is programmed to provide flight and check-in details and other information
about flights. While the bot is still being tweaked and is getting ready for the official
launch. It also suggests places to visit in the state also engages in casual
conversation with passengers.

RADA
• Vistara, a joint venture between Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines, has created a
unique artificial intelligence-based robot called RADA to automate simple tasks and
improve customer experience.
• According to a statement released by Vistara, the RADA will be placed at Vistara’s
Signature Lounge at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport’s Terminal 3 from
5 July 2018 to assist customers before they board their flights. It will also help
promote Vistara’s product and services with the help of distinct messages recited by
the bot.
• RADA will be further developed over a period of time in terms of functionality and
features for future use cases, after gauging customer feedback. It is conceived,
designed and engineered by its team of technology experts and apprentices from
Tata Innovation Lab with support from students of reputed institutions.
• Built on a chassis of four wheels, RADA can rotate 360 degrees and has three inbuilt
cameras for cognitive interaction. Combining these components with an effective
voice technology, Vistara has developed the robot to provide a simple solution to
cater to the emerging and future trends.