Critical robotics

Constructive critique of robotics, HRI, and their applications.

Publications

1. A. Ghoshal, M. Brandao, R. Abu-Salma, and S. Modgil, “Embodied AI at the Margins: Postcolonial Ethics for Intelligent Robotic Systems,” in AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (AIES), 2025. [Abstract] [PDF]

   As artificial intelligence (AI)-powered robots increasingly permeate global societies, critical questions emerge about their ethical governance in diverse cultural contexts. This paper interrogates the adequacy of dominant roboethics frameworks when applied to Global South environments, where unique sociotechnical landscapes demand a reevaluation of Western-centric ethical assumptions. Through thematic analysis of seven major ethical standards for AI and robotics, we uncover systemic limitations that present challenges in non-Western contexts - such as assumptions about standardized testing infrastructures, individualistic notions of autonomy, and universalized ethical principles. The uncritical adoption of these frameworks risks reproducing colonial power dynamics in which technological authority flows from centers of AI production rather than from the communities most affected by deployment. Instead of replacing existing frameworks entirely, we propose augmenting them through four complementary ethical dimensions developed through a postcolonial lens: epistemic non-imposition, onto-contextual consistency, agentic boundaries, and embodied spatial justice. These principles provide conceptual scaffolding for technological governance that respects indigenous knowledge systems, preserves cultural coherence, accounts for communal decision structures, and enhances substantive capabilities for Global South communities. The paper demonstrates practical implementation pathways for these principles across technological life cycles, offering actionable guidance for dataset curation, task design, and deployment protocols that mitigate power asymmetries in cross-cultural robotics implementation. This approach moves beyond surface-level adaptation to re-conceptualize how robotic systems may ethically function within the complex social ecologies of the Global South while fostering genuine technological sovereignty.

2. T. Seassau, W. Wu, T. Williams, and M. Brandao, “Should Delivery Robots Intervene if They Witness Civilian or Police Violence? An Exploratory Investigation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2025. [Abstract] [PDF]

   As public space robots navigate our streets, they are likely to witness various human behavior, including verbal or physical violence. In this paper we investigate whether people believe delivery robots should intervene when they witness violence, and their perceptions of the effectiveness of different conflict de-escalation strategies. We consider multiple types of violence (verbal, physical), sources of violence (civilian, police), and robot designs (wheeled, humanoid), and analyze their relationship with participants’ perceptions. Our analysis is based on two experiments using online questionnaires, investigating the decision to intervene (N=80) and intervention mode (N=100). We show that participants agreed more with human than robot intervention, though they often perceived robots as more effective, and preferred certain strategies, such as filming. Overall, the paper shows the need to investigate whether and when robot intervention in human-human conflict is socially acceptable, to consider police-led violence as a special case of robot de-escalation, and to involve communities that are common victims of violence in the design of public space robots with safety and security capabilities.

3. 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]

   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.

4. 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]

   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.

5. M. Brandao, M. Mansouri, and M. Magnusson, “Editorial: Responsible Robotics,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 9, Jun. 2022. [DOI]
6. 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.

7. 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]

   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.

• Previous Post in PROJECTS