Critique

We write critique on current practices, visions, and values of Robotics/AI research and development.

Relevant publications

1. Z. Evans, M. A. B. Malik, M. Leonetti, G. Canal, and M. Brandao, “Towards Inclusive Robot Competitions,” in 4th Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in HRI Workshop at HRI 2025, 2025. [Abstract] [PDF] #fairness

   Robot competitions such as RoboCup have long been a way promote and evaluate progress in robotics research. Since competitions have the potential to shape the direction of research, it is vital that they are inclusive of the people they will affect and critical of the practices and technologies they advocate for. This work aims to understand what gaps there are in robot competitions in regards to fostering inclusive development practices. In particular, we examine technical development reports from the 2024 Eindhoven RoboCup@Home league, and we find that many teams do not report on fairness or inclusivity practices, some subtask specifications are inherently problematic, and that relevant stakeholders are not involved in the design or evaluation of the competition. We offer recommendations to improve inclusivity in the RoboCup@Home league, which in turn could positively influence other areas of robotics development.

2. W. Wu, M. Nwachukwu, A. Ghoshal, M. Waller, and M. Brandao, “Dimensions of Diversity in Robot Datasets: Literature Analysis and Recommendations,” in 4th Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in HRI Workshop at HRI 2025, 2025. [Abstract] [PDF] #fairness

   Datasets are essential for building robotic policies that can generalize on new tasks. Recent studies show that a lack of diversity in data can lead to performance disparities and discrimination against underrepresented groups, therefore making diversity an important requirement of robot datasets. While many authors claim their datasets are ’diverse’ there is currently a lack of understanding of what diversity means in the context of robot datasets. Therefore, in this paper we conduct a systematic analysis of literature on robot manipulation and collaboration datasets to investigate what is meant by ’diversity’ when it is claimed by authors of the datasets. We identify five dimensions of diversity in the context of robot manipulation and collaboration: object, task, environment, platform, and human diversity. Then, we identify various limitations with current practices related to diversity, and offer several recommendations: creating datasets with clear definitions and scales of diversity, with greater cultural representation including from Global South cultures, the inclusion of human participants with varying motion characteristics and better reporting of human characteristics.

3. J. Contro and M. Brandao, “Interaction Minimalism: Minimizing HRI to Reduce Emotional Dependency on Robots,” in Robophilosophy Conference, 2024. [Abstract] [PDF] #wellbeing

   In this paper we show that with the increasing integration of social robots into daily life, concerns arise regarding their impact on the potential for creating emotional dependency. Using findings from the literature in Human-Robot Interaction, Human-Computer Interaction, Internet studies and Political Economics, we argue that current design and governance paradigms incentivize the creation of emotionally dependent relationships between humans and robots. To counteract this, we introduce Interaction Minimalism, a design philosophy that aims to minimize unnecessary interactions between humans and robots, and instead promote human-human relationships, hereby mitigating the risk of emotional dependency. By focusing on functionality without fostering dependency, this approach encourages autonomy, enhances human-human interactions, and advocates for minimal data extraction. Through hypothetical design examples, we demonstrate the viability of Interaction Minimalism in promoting healthier human-robot relationships. Our discussion extends to the implications of this design philosophy for future robot development, emphasizing the need for a shift towards more ethical practices that prioritize human well-being and privacy.

4. M. Brandao, M. Mansouri, and M. Magnusson, “Editorial: Responsible Robotics,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, Jun. 2022. [DOI]
5. M. Brandao, “Normative roboticists: the visions and values of technical robotics papers,” in IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2021, pp. 671–677. [Abstract] [DOI] [PDF]

   Visions have an important role in guiding and legitimizing technical research, as well as contributing to expectations of the general public towards technologies. In this paper we analyze technical robotics papers published between 1998 and 2019 to identify themes, trends and issues with the visions and values promoted by robotics research. In particular, we identify the themes of robotics visions and implicitly normative visions; and we quantify the relative presence of a variety of values and applications within technical papers. We conclude with a discussion of the language of robotics visions, marginalized visions and values, and possible paths forward for the robotics community to better align practice with societal interest. We also discuss implications and future work suggestions for Responsible Robotics and HRI research.

6. M. Brandao, “Discrimination issues in usage-based insurance for traditional and autonomous vehicles,” in Culturally Sustainable Robotics—Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2020, 2020, vol. 335, pp. 395–406. [Abstract] [DOI] [PDF] #fairness

   Vehicle insurance companies have started to offer usage-based policies which track users to estimate premiums. In this paper we argue that usage-based vehicle insurance can lead to indirect discrimination of sensitive personal characteristics of users, have a negative impact in multiple personal freedoms, and contribute to reinforcing existing socio-economic inequalities. We argue that there is an incentive for autonomous vehicles (AVs) to use similar insurance policies, and anticipate new sources of indirect and structural discrimination. We conclude by analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of alternative insurance policies for AVs: no-fault compensation schemes, technical explainability and fairness, and national funds.