I argue: We need robot literacy

In ELM’s “I argue“ series, Päivi Rasi-Heikkinen, Professor of Education at the University of Lapland, emphasises the need for robot literacy. “We need to enhance our skills in robot literacy as physical robots become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives,” she asserts.

The need to develop skills related to digitalisation and digital transformation is typically in focus when discussing lifelong learning today. However, the increasing pace of robotisation – the process of employing robots for tasks previously done by people – also creates a need for lifelong learning. I argue that interacting with and understanding physical robots requires adults to develop robot literacy. 

Presently, adults may interact with service robots in many places such as libraries, grocery stores, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes and private homes.  

Physical robots have a physical embodiment and are capable of performing various tasks. For example, there are care robots (e.g. medication dispensing), social robots (e.g. companionship) and service robots (e.g. grocery delivery). Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of so-called hospitality robots providing guidance in public places has increased.  

Interacting with and understanding physical robots requires robot literacy. 

A humanoid robot is a type of robot that has physical characteristics similar to humans such as a torso, arms and a head with some facial features. Humanoid robots may employ facial and bodily expressions, gaze directions and voices when interacting with humans. They may even be ultra-realistic in their human-like looks and behaviour. Human-likeness may generate strong emotional reactions in people – either positive or negative.  

Overall, according to the International Federation of Robotics, the service robot industry is growing fast: in 2023, worldwide sales of professional service robots grew by 30%. 

INTRODUCING YET ANOTHER literacy concept, robot literacy, among the existing ones such as AI literacy, needs careful consideration.  

However, I argue that robot literacy as a distinct concept from AI literacy is justified, because robots do not necessarily employ AI. If they do employ AI, they are a unique form of embodied AI of which the ultra-realistic humanoid robot is the most striking, thought-provoking example.  

Together with my colleagues, we have defined robot literacy as encompassing the following: 

1. Being aware of robots: What are robots? What kinds of robots are there? How do they function? What are their areas of use? What can they do and cannot do?  
2. Being able to interact with robots verbally (e.g. language, accent, timing of speech) or non-verbally (e.g. movements, proximity, gestures, sounds), and forming a meaningful human-robot relationship.  
3. Understanding and being able to evaluate the information provided by robots, for example: Where does the information originate from? Who programmed the robot and why?  
4. Understanding the data security and privacy of robots, for example: What kind of personal data does the robot collect? What kind of control do we have over the data? Where is the data stored?  
5. Programming of robots, which entails skills such programming language, coding, logical and creative thinking. 
6. Ethical reflection as readiness to contemplate ethical questions related to the uptake and use of robots from the viewpoints of, for example, well-being, care and justice. 
7. Providing and receiving social support in the uptake and use of robots. 

All the robot literacy dimensions are not equally relevant to all adults of different ages and from different cultural, social, political, and economic contexts.  

Also, not everyone needs the same amount of robot literacy. For example, presently only a very small number of older adults needs or has programming skills, let alone interest in them.  

However, it is safe to say that the first dimension of robot literacy – awareness of robots – is the first step toward a public discussion about the appropriate roles and boundaries for robotics now and in the future. As many experts have argued, robots are here to stay.  

The “I argue” series of columns features texts written by researchers, each presenting a well-argued statement on a topic of their research. 

References: 

International Federation of robotics (n.d.). World Robotics – Service Robots. https://ifr.org/wr-service-robots/ 

Rasi-Heikkinen, P., Rivinen, S., & Ahtinen, A. (2024). Older adults and robot literacy. Educational Gerontology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2024.2412367