Toddlers and Robots? The Ethics of Supporting Young Children with Disabilities with AI Companions and the Implications for Children’s Rights
Vol: 7, Issue: 1
2023
- 1,292Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,292
- Downloads829
- Abstract Views463
Artifact Description
Rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) pose new ethical questions for human rights educators. This article uses Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) as a case study. SARs, also known as social robots, are AI systems designed to interact with humans. Often built to enhance human wellbeing or provide companionship, social robots are typically designed to mimic human behaviors. They may look endearing, friendly, and appealing. Well-designed models will interact with humans in ways that feel trustworthy, natural, and intuitive. As one of the fastest-growing areas of AI, social robots raise new questions for human rights specialists. When used with young children with disabilities, they raise pressing questions around surveillance, data privacy, discrimination, and the socio-emotional impact of technology on child development. This article delves into some of these ethical questions. It takes into account the unique vulnerabilities of young children with disabilities and reflects on the long-term societal implications of AI-assisted care. While not aiming to be comprehensive, the article explores some of the ethical implications of social robots as technologies that sit at the boundary of the human and nonhuman. What pitfalls and possibilities arise from this liminal space for children’s rights?
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know