Robots should be slaves
Abstract
Robots should not be described as persons, nor given legal nor moral responsibility for their actions. Robots are fully owned by us. We determine their goals and behavior, either directly or indirectly through specifying their intelligence or how their intelligence is acquired. In humanising them, we not only further dehumanise real people, but also encourage poor human decision making in the allocation of resources and responsibility. This is true at both the individual and the institutional level. This chapter describes both causes and consequences of these errors, including consequences already present in society. I make specific proposals for best incorporating robots into our society. The potential of robotics should be understood as the potential to extend our own abilities and to address our own goals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People's relationships with AI companions could disrupt human relationships, consuming attention or time better spent with human friends or family.
“People's relationships with AI companions could also disrupt human relationships, consuming attention or time better spent with human friends or family (Bryson, 2010).”
From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Bryson, 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 15 · Cited by 455
- Authors
- Bryson, J. J.
- Corresponding author
- Bryson, Joanna J.
- ORCID
- Bryson, Joanna J.
- Venue
- Natural Language Processing
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2010-03-24
- Pages
- 63-74
- ISSN
- 1567-8202 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W175184045
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 22.75
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Natural language processing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- robots, personhood, legal responsibility, moral responsibility, human-robot relationships, dehumanization, resource allocation, human decision-making, robot ethics, human enhancement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review