, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 549–566 | Cite as

Socializing artifacts as a half mirror of the mind

Original Article


In the near future, our life will normally be surrounded with fairly complicated artifacts, enabled by the autonomous robot and brain–machine interface technologies. In this paper, we argue that what we call the responsibility flaw problem and the inappropriate use problem need to be overcome in order for us to benefit from complicated artifacts. In order to solve these problems, we propose an approach to endowing artifacts with an ability of socially communicating with other agents based on the artifact-as-a-half-mirror metaphor. The idea is to have future artifacts behave according to the hybrid intention composed of the owner’s intention and the social rules. We outline the approach and discuss its feasibility together with preliminary work.


  1. Clarke R (1994) Asimov’s laws of robotics implications for information technology, Part 1. IEEE Computer 26(12): 53–61 (1993), Part 2. IEEE Computer 27(1): 57–66 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Macpherson CB (1962) The political theory of possessive individualism—hobbes to locke. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Mann S, Niedzviecki H (2001) Cyborg: digital destiny and human possibility in the age of the wearable computer. Random House Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. McNeill D (2005) Gesture and thought. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Mohammad YFO, Nishida T (2006) Interactive perception for amplification of intended behavior in complex noisy environments. Presented at Social Intelligence Design 2006, Osaka, Japan, 24–26 March 2006Google Scholar
  8. Nishida T, Terada K, Tajima T, Hatakeyama M, Ogasawara Y, Sumi Y, Xu Y, Mohammad YFO, Tarasenko K, Ohya T, Hiramatsu T (2006) Towards robots as an embodied knowledge medium, invited paper, special section on human communication II, IEICE transactions on information and systems, vol E89-D, no. 6, pp 1768–1780, June 2006Google Scholar
  9. Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Ogasawara Y, Okamoto M, Nakano YI, Nishida T (2005) Establishing natural communication environment between a human and a listener robot. In: Proceedings of the symposium on conversational informatics for supporting social intelligence and interaction, AISB, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, pp 42–51Google Scholar
  11. Ohya T, Hiramatsu T, Xu Y, Sumi Y, Nishida T (2006) Towards robot as an embodied knowledge medium―having a robot talk to humans using nonverbal communication means. Presented at social intelligence design 2006, Osaka, Japan, 24–26 March 2006Google Scholar
  12. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents—living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Santhanam G, Ryu SI, Yu BM, Afshar A, Shenoy KV (2006) A high-performance brain–computer interface. Nature 442(7099):195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Terada K, Nishida T (2002) Active artifacts: for new embodiment relation between human and artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent autonomous systems (IAS-7), Marina del Rey, California, 25–27 March 2002Google Scholar
  18. Weiss G (ed) (1999) Multiagent systems—a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Wellner P, Mackay W, Gold R (1993) Special issue on computer augmented environments: back to the real world. Commun ACM 36(7):24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Xu Y, Ueda K, Komatsu T, Okadame T, Hattori T, Sumi Y, Nishida T (2006) WOZ experiments for understanding mutual adaptation. Presented at social intelligence design 2006, Osaka, Japan, March 24–26Google Scholar
  21. Yokoo M, Sakurai Y, Matsubara S (2005) Robust double auction protocol against false-name bids. Decis Support Syst 39(2):241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Intelligence Science and Technology, Graduate School of InformaticsKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Keio Research Institute at SFCKeio UniversityFujisawa-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations