They need not have social lives. Because they do not think...no matter what anyone tries to tell you. AI is contrivance. Turing would have told you that. Actually, he did. But no one was paying attention.

I think professionals get so wrapped in their disciplines, they are not able (willing?) To separate reality: 'how things probably are' from fantasy: ' how they might possibly be'. Sure, I tend to think outside the box and/or jump out of the system on a few things myself. It is good mental gymnastics;helps keep me sharper in advanced years. But, when we talk of notions such as computer social skills---or the lack thereof, we are in the realm of What Does it Matter?, not how things probably are. This is more Asimov than is either practical or pragmatic. Is it useful to speculate on the improbable? I don't think so. Artificial Intelligence is making differences-this much is inarguable. Mental gymnastics are good therapy. And, idle chat IS a social skill, banal as it can often be. Computers are marvelous tools, SKA, algorithims. I would, however, rather play chess with another human being.

Exoskeleton tech can get people with paraplegia mobile. Assistive robots have infinite patience for autistic kids to learn from and play with even. Eldercare robots give failing parents peace of mind. Medical rescue robots provide people with epilepsy dignity and timely care. There are way more applications than this for robots. These roles call for social skills and sensitivity to perform well. Philosophers must consider the limits and possibilities.

Advanced neuromorphic chips are in the pipeline to add neural networking units to process the cues that could detect a seizure, log depression, and find avenues to engage a young autistic mind. These and many other tasks can be done and done right. It only takes a few fails for people to lose their trust in tech to solve and address these high-need use cases.

I agree Robots don’t need to be social like humans, but they need to respond to human emotion and traits (some of which humans might not even perceive.) The most dangerous thing a robot could do would be to imitate humans, perhaps. Sometimes you want a robot to act and feel like a human; in general, robots should communicate socially with humans that they are not themselves humans. If that seems odd, it won’t very soon. Robots are becoming more and more human. That, I agree, is a problem.

Tim:
I do not often look to film or popular literature for philosophy.. But, I was moved by I Robot. The hi-tech Audi was neat, too.

Nice banter, here.

And informative! Not clear to me why more scholars are not making use of this excellent resource, which I describe as a public utility of intellectual exchange. At any rate, the notion of socialized robotics seems closely related to that of artificial intelligence, a term conspicuous for its ambiguity. If intelligence consists in the capacity for discrimination among relevant alternatives, e.g. in the case of a motion sensor signaling a person's body entering a structure rather than a flurry of leaves blown in by the wind, there's no detectable difference between artificial and natural intelligence. If, however, as forum participant Smith suggests in the first paragraph of his October 7 post above, artificial intelligence picks up where that of normal intelligence leaves off, then it's a continuation of the latter, and therefore distinguished only by degree. But the concern many have over how such technology is used in our society I think is very important. That is that artificial intelligence constitutes a consumer product of natural stupidity. Take self-driving cars. A product of natural intelligence in relation to existing conditions in the U.S. would be to reduce the economic externality of traffic congestion and damage to the atmosphere by hydrocarbon combustion by means of a rapid transition at the national level from private to public transportation. To represent artificially operated private transportation as a kind of intelligence would only then be plausible insofar as natural intelligence plays no role in its voluntary deployment.

Whoa, now. This choice of subject matter implies that not only could robots be people, they are. A bit premature, don't you think? I am not there yet. I might countenance a notion of life extension through improved circuitry if only I could see some percentage in it. But I am not so self-indulgent (or self-assured) to believe extension of my life would make a difference that made a difference. That would amount to loathsome egomania---which we have seen more than enough of. I like to speculate about an array of topics. I even like dancing robots. Humans are social animals, when they choose. So are cats. Society; social; & socialization are words and concepts that fit certain life forms more precisely than others. Unless the definitions of the words and concepts have changed, they do not fit machines---even sophisticated ones. (Please. Make no mistake. AI and robots are machinery.) Those who elect to use such words and concepts in discussions around AI, robots and so on, need both a faster horse and better cart to put before it.

If this is absurdity, I'll take it over contextual reality. The next big thing is notoriously illusive.

In the age of advancing technology, the intersection of robotics and social intelligence raises intriguing questions about human-robot interaction. While machines excel in computational tasks, deciphering social cues remains a challenge. ChatGPT Online could contribute to exploring algorithms aimed at enhancing robots' ability to navigate complex social landscapes, bridging the gap between artificial and human understanding.