Do you want a robot to be your emotional support friend or reminder to do things?

There's a re-run of Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" radio adaptations on BBC radio 4 at the moment.

I have to admit to empathisng somewhat with the robots in the stories as they are presented...

The robot as metaphor for autism and autistic people potentially being more able to communicate with robots/artificial intelligence is one that is not lost upon me.

I am happy to admit robots and artificial intelligence into a framework of sentience and equality (given the 3 laws of robotics...).

I already employ AI to resolve some executive function problems and use representations of people in literature, theatre etc. to satisfy of some aspects of my human communication needs.

Robots "conversational", emotional and dare one say spiritual capabilities don't yet achieve those of some humans I know.  Maybe one day...

Personally I would prefer that any efforts in this direction be first directed towards enabling more people to be equipped to recognise and resolve autistic people's (and wider society's) problems in understanding and caring for one another.

This years Reith lecturer suggests that the greatest problem facing humanity is not global warming or war and disasters.  It is that the greatest human minds are currently employed in working out how to get people to click on social media advertising or some other way to screw the rest of humanity...

other minds are on this too...

People with Autism Spectrum Disorder Could Interact More Easily with a Robot than with a Human: Reasons and Limits - PMC

Thank you for this article Phased very interesting.

I would always go for a robot interviewer rather than a human.

Thanks for sharing this, it really makes sense to me.

Having something that can give different options or perspectives in the moment would help a lot, especially when stress or overload makes it hard to think clearly.

And yes, sometimes the problem is just the environment being unreasonable.

I agree that support like this forum can help us make sense of things, even if it’s harder to use it n the moment.

Thanks for putting it so clearly.

(⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠)

a consideration I would like to share please Lonehare12 

The incapacity for an autistic person to be able to identify hidden expectations, social rules or to be able to "say the right thing" may be due to a variety of factors.

A small AI robot would potentially be able to analyse a myriad of factors and generate a set of possible responses to these factors.

The one that is ultimately employed remains potentially subject to selection - this based upon a variety of biases and choices  "rules".  Perhaps one might set these up before employing with it...  "today i am taking no sh1t from anyone, except..." or "today i am being very empathetic and giving" or " today I just want to completely ignore (politely) any communication on these topics..."

This behaviour might in some sense be one's "personality". 

In so far as how one selects which choice is possible? I concur that having different perspectives from that which one might be both habituated towards and indeed able to create based upon the information available to one provided by an advisor on such matters is indeed an attractive proposition.  Human society has behaved like this among themselves without the use of robots for some time.  I suspect that when people engage with this forum this is what is taking place.

I suspect that a important component of such engagement is that ideally we would have that support "in the moment" - this site does not enable that unless one has been able to "internalise" something from it that works "in the moment".

On a practical basis for how one might be able to do this oneself without assistance I am drawn to think in 3 main themes. 

1 the autistic brain simply cannot perform these tasks without extra hard work - might be blocked from doing so by excess sensory stimulus etc...  It is because one is autistic...

2 The high levels of stress and anxiety that one is constantly bathed in pushes one into "cognitive dysfunction" such that one is unable to make such decisions oneself without being in "survival mode".

3 Neurotypical people and society are often pathologically mad.

hehe I suspect there are elements of truth in all of these factors (and no doubt others) carefully spending time and effort to resolve these things might be self empowering and perhaps "self-healing".

I get what you mean about conversations being harder with NT people.

I often feel like I’m double checking everything.

It’s exhausting.

I think that’s partly why the idea of a small AI robot appealed to me.

It feels like it would take some of that pressure off. No hidden expectations, no social rules I can’t see, and no feeling like I’ve said the wrong thing.

Maybe for me it’s more the comfort of something predictable, especially when people can feel quite complicated.

Yes, a checklist/format works well - for example the manner  in which committees are run.  (at least as I understand and experience it how they are meant to be run....)

Written communication has the benefit of both parties being able to return to phases of the communication to reflect on whether and when misunderstandings might have arisen.  This naturally relies upon all parties involved being both willing and open to doing so.

I concur with the issue of having to hold all aspects in one's mind while doing it.

I suspect the primary issue that we might all deal with there are issues relating to thinking and acting in past, present and future terms.  

In a previous thread there is reference to an article where some people might be said to re-invent the past to justify how they wish the present to be.  Something that is clearly documented is difficult to contend (although transcription of events incorrectly or failing to take into account all perspectives (for whatever reasons) does make this problematic.

There is also the potential that the two parties might not have the same goal in mind of the communication and they are not privy to one another's thinking in this respect.  (these things might not be clearly defined, one or other is hiding something from the other or themselves or simply being deceitful)  Furthermore communication goals advance "freestyle".

Much of this seems to me to be about trust and collaboration.

Probably an additional way of overcoming these issues is to incorporate "check phases" in the communication.  What do you think of...

E.g.: I might ask:  "What do you think about my reply Iain ?

Was it relevant/ a reasonable understanding of what you wrote about?  (hehe or am I just "off on one!")

Have you any questions of me to clarify and or explore whether you can trust what I said?

Then I suppose I want to ask you what can you tell me to help me understand more please?

Then have we come to a shared, mutual agreement collaboratively and can we both state it? (hehe even if its " we disagree on this")

Phased said:

I think the tricky thing that complicates things is that both oneself and another person have "agenda", expectations etc from an interview or conversation.

Would it be practical to work from a checklist of sorts where the details need to be given in a particular format for these events, thus taking away the chance of ommission and also clearly pointing out who is responsible if incorrect info is given?

I found that removing the option for freestyling the info exchange removes a lot of the worry for me. Of course I need to check the data is complete but this is much faster than trying to hold all aspects in my mind while doing it.

I understand your bias there Lonehare12 .

I find engaging in conversation with (especially) neurotypical people harder because I also have to work hard on making sure they have understood what I have said to them and also making sure I have understood what they have said to me.  

I think the tricky thing that complicates things is that both oneself and another person have "agenda", expectations etc from an interview or conversation.  Maybe this fits with the autistic issue in this Lonehare12 ?

as other good people have pointed out that the providers of AI have an ulterior motive in our using it - this is something problematic

I understand your bias there Lonehare12 .

I find engaging in conversation with (especially) neurotypical people harder because I also have to work hard on making sure they have understood what I have said to them and also making sure I have understood what they have said to me.  

I think the tricky thing that complicates things is that both oneself and another person have "agenda", expectations etc from an interview or conversation.  Maybe this fits with the autistic issue in this Lonehare12 ?

as other good people have pointed out that the providers of AI have an ulterior motive in our using it - this is something problematic

Thanks for sharing this, it really makes sense to me.

Having something that can give different options or perspectives in the moment would help a lot, especially when stress or overload makes it hard to think clearly.

And yes, sometimes the problem is just the environment being unreasonable.

I agree that support like this forum can help us make sense of things, even if it’s harder to use it n the moment.

Thanks for putting it so clearly.

(⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠)

a consideration I would like to share please Lonehare12 

The incapacity for an autistic person to be able to identify hidden expectations, social rules or to be able to "say the right thing" may be due to a variety of factors.

A small AI robot would potentially be able to analyse a myriad of factors and generate a set of possible responses to these factors.

The one that is ultimately employed remains potentially subject to selection - this based upon a variety of biases and choices  "rules".  Perhaps one might set these up before employing with it...  "today i am taking no sh1t from anyone, except..." or "today i am being very empathetic and giving" or " today I just want to completely ignore (politely) any communication on these topics..."

This behaviour might in some sense be one's "personality". 

In so far as how one selects which choice is possible? I concur that having different perspectives from that which one might be both habituated towards and indeed able to create based upon the information available to one provided by an advisor on such matters is indeed an attractive proposition.  Human society has behaved like this among themselves without the use of robots for some time.  I suspect that when people engage with this forum this is what is taking place.

I suspect that a important component of such engagement is that ideally we would have that support "in the moment" - this site does not enable that unless one has been able to "internalise" something from it that works "in the moment".

On a practical basis for how one might be able to do this oneself without assistance I am drawn to think in 3 main themes. 

1 the autistic brain simply cannot perform these tasks without extra hard work - might be blocked from doing so by excess sensory stimulus etc...  It is because one is autistic...

2 The high levels of stress and anxiety that one is constantly bathed in pushes one into "cognitive dysfunction" such that one is unable to make such decisions oneself without being in "survival mode".

3 Neurotypical people and society are often pathologically mad.

hehe I suspect there are elements of truth in all of these factors (and no doubt others) carefully spending time and effort to resolve these things might be self empowering and perhaps "self-healing".

I get what you mean about conversations being harder with NT people.

I often feel like I’m double checking everything.

It’s exhausting.

I think that’s partly why the idea of a small AI robot appealed to me.

It feels like it would take some of that pressure off. No hidden expectations, no social rules I can’t see, and no feeling like I’ve said the wrong thing.

Maybe for me it’s more the comfort of something predictable, especially when people can feel quite complicated.

Yes, a checklist/format works well - for example the manner  in which committees are run.  (at least as I understand and experience it how they are meant to be run....)

Written communication has the benefit of both parties being able to return to phases of the communication to reflect on whether and when misunderstandings might have arisen.  This naturally relies upon all parties involved being both willing and open to doing so.

I concur with the issue of having to hold all aspects in one's mind while doing it.

I suspect the primary issue that we might all deal with there are issues relating to thinking and acting in past, present and future terms.  

In a previous thread there is reference to an article where some people might be said to re-invent the past to justify how they wish the present to be.  Something that is clearly documented is difficult to contend (although transcription of events incorrectly or failing to take into account all perspectives (for whatever reasons) does make this problematic.

There is also the potential that the two parties might not have the same goal in mind of the communication and they are not privy to one another's thinking in this respect.  (these things might not be clearly defined, one or other is hiding something from the other or themselves or simply being deceitful)  Furthermore communication goals advance "freestyle".

Much of this seems to me to be about trust and collaboration.

Probably an additional way of overcoming these issues is to incorporate "check phases" in the communication.  What do you think of...

E.g.: I might ask:  "What do you think about my reply Iain ?

Was it relevant/ a reasonable understanding of what you wrote about?  (hehe or am I just "off on one!")

Have you any questions of me to clarify and or explore whether you can trust what I said?

Then I suppose I want to ask you what can you tell me to help me understand more please?

Then have we come to a shared, mutual agreement collaboratively and can we both state it? (hehe even if its " we disagree on this")

Phased said:

I think the tricky thing that complicates things is that both oneself and another person have "agenda", expectations etc from an interview or conversation.

Would it be practical to work from a checklist of sorts where the details need to be given in a particular format for these events, thus taking away the chance of ommission and also clearly pointing out who is responsible if incorrect info is given?

I found that removing the option for freestyling the info exchange removes a lot of the worry for me. Of course I need to check the data is complete but this is much faster than trying to hold all aspects in my mind while doing it.