Source assessmentSupporting
Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care
Ethical design of carebotsAcademic
Assessment outcome
total 3/6 (actionability 1 + authority 1 + currency 1)
Total3/6
Actionability1/2
Authority1/2
Currency1/2
Authorship & scope
Attribution (G4 evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuer authority (evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
G1 · Retrievablepass
Passed in screening.
G2 · AI nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G3 · Governance nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G4 · Attributablepass
Passed in screening.
G5 · In forcepass
Passed in screening.
Scored criteria
Actionability
1/2No rationale recorded.
Taking Grodzinsky et al. as laying the basic requirements, I would argue that deception by carebots with regard to vulnerable persons may be allowed only if (a) the intention of the developer is ethical with respect to the care recipients, (b) the consequences are indeed positive for the care recipient, (c) there are no viable alternatives to the use of deception; and (d) the extent of infringement of the care recipient’s autonomy is not more than that via other means.
Authority
1/2No rationale recorded.
International Journal of Social Robotics https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00653-w Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care Gary Chan Kok Yew 1 Accepted: 17 April 2020
Currency
1/2No rationale recorded.
Classification
Coverage topicEthical design of carebots
PerspectiveAcademic
Lifecycle stage1 Plan & design
Layerboth
GranularityNot recorded