This chapter introduces social scientific perspectives and methods applicable to observing the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and religion. It discusses the contributions that anthropological and sociological approaches can make to this entanglement of two modern social phenomena while also drawing attention to the inherent biases and perspectives that both fields bring with them due to their histories. Examples of research on religion and AI are highlighted, especially when they demonstrate agile and new methodologies for engaging with AI in its many applications; including but not limited to online worlds, multimedia formats, games, social media and the new spaces made by technological innovation such as the innovations such as the platforms underpinning the gig economy. All these AI-enabled spaces can be entangled with religious and spiritual conceptions of the world. This chapter also aims to expand upon the relationship between AI and religion as it is perceived as a general concept or object within human society and civilisation. It explains how both anthropology and sociology can provide frameworks for conceptualising that relationship and give us ways to account for our narratives of secularisation – informed by AI development – that see religion as a remnant of a prior, less rational stage of human civilisation.

The use of care robots can reduce the demands for manpower in long-term care facilities. Further, care robots serve the needs of both the elders residing in care facilities and the staff of the facilities. This chapter considers the following issues for care robots. Whether long-term care robots should be required to meet the high standards for the use of medical devices found in current regulations. How should standards of use be developed for care robots based on the characteristics of the robots? For this question, I note that in Japan, a public–private partnership has shown success in the regulation of care robots. In addition, with care robots, how should we protect the privacy of elders and their relatives or friends in contact with care robots given that the elderly may have reduced cognitive ability. And lastly, what legal and ethical concerns apply to the design of the interfaces between care robots and elders?

When a robot harms humans, are there any grounds for holding it criminally liable for its misconduct? Yes, provided that the robot has the ability to form, act on, and explain its moral decisions. If such a robot falls short of the basic moral standards expected by society, labeling it as a criminal can serve criminal law’s function of censuring wrongful conduct and ease the emotional harm suffered by human victims. Moreover, imposing criminal liability on robots could have significant instrumental value in certain cases, such as in identifying culpable humans. However, this does not exempt the manufacturers, trainers, or owners of the robots from any potential criminal liability.

Even the most market-oriented approaches to regulating AI-enabled robots presume some governmental regulator to collaborate in setting outcome goals. And the more advanced an AI-enabled robot becomes, the greater the need for oversight. For the past several decades, regulatory oversight boards have grown in use to promote the quality, transparency, and accountability of regulatory rules and policy. And recently, leading administrative law voices in the United States and the European Union have called for the creation of an oversight board to monitor regulator use of AI entities. How do we determine if these boards are worth the risks they create? To answer this question, this chapter uses the context of AI-enabled robots, which are increasingly prominent in homes, business, and education, to explain both when regulatory oversight boards are valuable as well as when they can frustrate society’s efforts to reduce the ill effects of emerging smart robots. Regulatory oversight boards create value in this context by conducting impact assessments of regulatory policies with an eye to the technological advancements and social context relevant to AI technologies such as robots, and oversight boards can promote regulatory foresight. However, oversight boards themselves pose risks. By influencing the methodological approach used by regulators, errors made by oversight boards can have outsized impacts. To determine whether any given oversight board is worth the risk it creates, this chapter sets out a simple cost-based approach for comparing the risks and benefits of regulatory oversight boards. This approach then is applied to emerging regulatory oversight boards looking at robots entering society.

The chapter examines a classic subject of HRI, social robotics, and the law, such as the design, manufacture, and use of humanoid AI robots for healthcare. The aim is to illustrate a new set of legal challenges that are unique to these systems when displayed in outer space. Such challenges may require the adoption of new legal standards, in particular, either sui generis standards of space law, or stricter or more flexible standards for HRI in space missions, down to a new “principle of equality” between human standards and robotic standards in outer space. The chapter complements current discussions and initiatives on the development of standards for the use of humanoid AI robots in health law, consumer law, and cybersecurity by considering the realignment of terrestrial standards that we may thus expect with the increasing use of humanoid AI systems in space journeys. The assumption is that breathtaking advancements of AI and robotics, current trends on the privatization of the space, and the evolution of current regulatory frameworks, also but not only in space law, will put the development of these new legal standards in the spotlight.

This chapter explores the intersection of Hindu philosophy and practice with the development of artificial intelligence (AI). The chapter first introduces aspects of technological growth in Hindu contexts, including the reception of ‘Western’ ideas about AI in Hindu communities before describing key elements of the Hindu traditions. It then shows how AI technologies can be conceived of from a Hindu perspective and moves from there to the philosophical contributions Hinduism offers for global reflection on AI. Specifically, the chapter describes openings and contentions for AI in Hindu rituals. The focus is the use of robotics and/or AI in Hindu pūjā (worship of gods) and the key practice of darśan (mutual seeing) with the divine. Subsequently, the chapter investigates how Hindu philosophers have engaged the distinctive qualities of human beings and their investigation into body, minds and consciousness/awareness. The chapter concludes by raising questions for future research.

This chapter introduces the construct of anthropomorphism and highlights its relevance for human–robot interaction (HRI) research. This chapter reviews existing definitions of anthropomorphism and distinguishes it from anthropomorphization. It further discusses established theoretical models of anthropomorphism and their respective empirical support (or lack thereof). Moreover, we address consequences of anthropomorphism, especially for HRI. We shed light on different ways to measure anthropomorphism in HRI, discussing advantages and disadvantages of such measurement approaches, respectively. Finally, the present overview offers reflections on the added value of taking into account anthropomorphism and anthropomorphization in HRI research.

In recent years, the embodiment of AI in the form of a robot brings forth new challenges in privacy and transparency. A cognitive robot must be able to integrate multiple tasks in its performance that requires collecting a great amount of data and the use of various AI techniques. As robotics technology continues to advance, socially assistive humanoid robots will play a more central role in interacting with humans. However, can we trust robots in social contexts? How can we design embedded AI robots such that they are more transparent and trustworthy? and what technical, legal, and ethical frameworks might we adopt to build a trust relationship with robots? This chapter discusses these fundamental questions concerning privacy and transparency in human–robot interaction. It will then propose possible ethical and regulatory responses to address them.