Despite great advances in what robots can do, they still experience failures in human-robot collaborative tasks due to high randomness in unstructured human environments. Moreover, a human's unfamiliarity with a robot and its abilities can cause such failures to repeat. This makes the ability to failure explanation very important for a robot. In this work, we describe a user study that incorporated different robotic failures in a human-robot collaboration (HRC) task aimed at filling a shelf. We included different types of failures and repeated occurrences of such failures in a prolonged interaction between humans and robots. The failure resolution involved human intervention in form of human-robot bidirectional handovers. Through such studies, we aim to test different explanation types and explanation progression in the interaction and record humans.

While thinking aloud has been reported to positively affect problem-solving, the effects of the presence of an embodied entity (e.g., a social robot) to whom words can be directed remain mostly unexplored. In this work, we investigated the role of a robot in a "rubber duck debugging" setting, by analyzing how a robot's listening behaviors could support a thinking-aloud problem-solving session. Participants completed two different tasks while speaking their thoughts aloud to either a robot or an inanimate object (a giant rubber duck). We implemented and tested two types of listener behavior in the robot: a rule-based heuristic and a deep-learning-based model. In a between-subject user study with 101 participants, we evaluated how the presence of a robot affected users' engagement in thinking aloud, behavior during the task, and self-reported user experience. In addition, we explored the impact of the two robot listening behaviors on those measures. In contrast to prior work, our results indicate that neither the rule-based heuristic nor the deep learning robot conditions improved performance or perception of the task, compared to an inanimate object. We discuss potential explanations and shed light on the feasibility of designing social robots as assistive tools in thinking-aloud problem-solving tasks.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and its progressively wider impact on many sectors across the society requires an assessment of its effect on sustainable development. Here we analyze published evidence of positive or negative impacts of AI on the achievement of each of the 17 goals and 169 targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We find that AI can support the achievement of 128 targets across all SDGs, but it may also inhibit 58 targets. Notably, AI enables new technologies that improve efficiency and productivity, but it may also lead to increased inequalities among and within countries, thus hindering the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. The fast development of AI needs to be supported by appropriate policy and regulation. Otherwise, it would lead to gaps in transparency, accountability, safety and ethical standards of AI-based technology, which could be detrimental towards the development and sustainable use of AI. Finally, there is a lack of research assessing the medium- and long-term impacts of AI. It is therefore essential to reinforce the global debate regarding the use of AI and to develop the necessary regulatory insight and oversight for AI-based technologies.

When the underlying assumptions of commonality of purpose and content break down, the interaction does as well. A great deal of the art of interaction design lies in minimizing what is, from the agent's point of view, out-of-task behavior, both by anticipating natural intask communication and by providing cues to lead participants down the predicted paths. Anticipation and cueing are particularly important in designing interactions for young children, a population that is limited in its ability to understand and adapt to the bounds of a system when things go awry. Most speech and natural language research that focuses on this population has pedagogy (Ogan et al. 2012; Gordon and Breazeal 2015) or therapy As explained briefly by Edith, there are two main game actions: effecting a change to the model by naming one of the clothing items or accessories on the board, and requesting a picture of the increasingly crazily clad model to be printed and taken home afterward. The majority of the interaction consists of 20 choice cycles during each of which a valid reference to a board item is made, the model changes, and a replacement item appears.