A Vulnerability-oriented Impact Assessment for the Development of Human-Centred and Fundamental Rights-Empowering Social Robots.
This academic paper argues that anthropomorphism in social robotics is an irreducible manifestation of human vulnerability rather than a mere bias or a phenomenon that can be eliminated. It proposes a Vulnerability-oriented Impact Assessment (VIA) as an alternative to risk-based approaches to evaluate how robot design features impact human psychological integrity and fundamental rights. The assessment framework focuses on physical appearance, interaction mode, purposes, frequency, context of use, and the robot's level of autonomy.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
AI developers, roboticists, and researchers should read this to understand how to design human-centred social robots that respect human vulnerability and fundamental rights.
What the document contains
The paper addresses ethical and legal concerns associated with social robots, specifically focusing on anthropomorphism as an expression of human vulnerability. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating the impact of social robots on human vulnerability through six specific criteria.
The text does not provide binding legal enforcement mechanisms, quantitative thresholds for acceptable vulnerability risks, or formalized legal definitions for long-term psychological damages.
- Anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction is an irreducible feature of human nature and represents the manifestation of inherent human vulnerability.
- Social robots can introduce manipulative drifts, distortion of reality, psychological damages, and over-reliance.
- A Vulnerability-oriented Impact Assessment (VIA) is proposed as a complement or alternative to pure risk-based models.
- The VIA evaluates physical appearance, interaction mode, interaction purposes, frequency, context of use, and robot autonomy.
· 1 Introduction · 2 Anthropomorphism and Humanity - 2.1 Vulnerability: a Heuristic for the Analysis · 3 Vulnerability Impact Assessment · 4 Conclusions and Future Works
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
1/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
In this theoretical context, the law and technologies’ producers and programmers can play a central role in reducing, mitigating and counterbalancing vulnerability
2.1 Vulnerability: a Heuristic for the Analysis
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
The degree of human control over the system’s output could be crucial.
3 VULNERABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
1/5Protection of personal data and private life
with particular attention to distinguish private and public spaces. This is due to the fact that the level of dependency and emotional attachment possibly developed by the user towards the machine is sensitively influenced by the inclusion in a domestic, intimate, private environment.
3 VULNERABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24