Can Care Robots Improve Quality Of Life As We Age?

This year's Consumer Electronics Show was rife with the announcement of new and improved robots. With names like Lovot, Pillo, Paro, Moflin, and Qoobo (all real), there is a growing class of robots on the market that claim to deliver the benefits of human connection through AI and machine learning technology. Their primary audience? The elderly.

As people in the wealthiest parts of the world live longer – though not necessarily healthier – lives, there has been an increasing shortage of caregivers for aging populations. This trend is already well advanced in Japan and parts of Europe, and the Census Bureau predicts that by 2035, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 for the first time in history. The federal government spent 40% of its budget on seniors in 2018, a figure that’s estimated to rise to 50% by 2029, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Moreover, the economic value of unpaid family caregivers in the U.S. totals as much $470 billion, according to the AARP.

In the struggle to care for the world’s aging populations, the tech industry has identified enormous opportunity in care robotics: technologies designed to help the elderly in everything from assistance with daily tasks to social and emotional support. Yet the very terms “care-bot” or “socially assistive robot (SAR)” point to some of the major challenges facing this technology. Caring, and being social are about as uniquely human capabilities as one can identify and perhaps the least suited to technological displacement.

As the care robotics industry gains momentum, designers and technologists have a responsibility to think through the stakeholders, outcomes, and systems that care-bots impact. Who actually benefits from this technology? Should care-bots replace or facilitate human connection? And what role do they play in the broader experience of aging?

Designing for seniors, first

While care robots are ostensibly created for seniors, in practice many care robotics are designed to help, alleviate, or displace some of the demanding tasks of elder care on professional caregivers, medical staff, or family members. This caregiver-centric perspective is problematic in that it easily subverts, ignores, or even opposes the needs and rights of the elderly.

For example, monitoring technology in care robots can provide valuable health or behavioral metrics to doctors and caregivers. But it is one thing to use technology to monitor your own data, and quite another to use it to monitor grandma. In the context of healthcare, issues of consent, surveillance, and privacy are especially critical. Significant amounts of personal, medical, and behavioral data gathered by care-bots can be processed, shared, and distributed in the cloud in a way that the general public does not easily understand.

How can we ensure seniors are consenting to the tracking and use of their data, particularly if they are experiencing intellectual disabilities? Who should have access to this personal data and under what circumstances? Moreover, how is this data stored, analyzed, and potentially monetized?

Care robots must support the elderly, first and foremost. Understanding their needs, wants, and preferences will help us design tools that better assist and empower the elderly – as well as their caregivers.

Replacing vs. facilitating connection

The new generation of care robots do far more than just manual tasks. They provide everything from intellectual engagement to social companionship that was once reserved for human caregivers and family members.

When it comes to replicating or substituting human connection, designers must be intentional about what outcomes these robots are designed to achieve. To what degree are care robots facilitating and maximizing emotional connection with others (a personified AI assistant that helps you call your grandchildren, for example) or providing the actual connection itself (such as a robot that appears as a huggable, strokable pet)?

Research suggests that an extensive social network offers protection against some of the intellectual effects of aging. There could also be legitimate uses for this kind of technology in mental health and dementia therapy, where patients are not able to care for a “real” pet or partner. Some people might also find it easier to bond or be vulnerable with an objective robot than a subjective human.

Yet the risks and externalities of robots as social companions are not yet well understood. Would interacting with artificial agents lead some people to engage less with the humans around them, or develop intimacy with an intelligent robot? This debate enters new territory with the arrival of so-called deepfakes, or convincing reproductions of real humans. The potential to use deepfakes as artificial companions is already possible and sure to be productized soon.

There are profoundly challenging ethical questions that emerge around building technology whose primary pitch is to supplant human companionship, caring, and social interaction. We shouldn’t broadly adopt such technology without careful research, development of strong ethical principles, and an eye to the specific outcomes we want to create with it.

One robotic piece in a bigger puzzle

People face diverse needs and challenges along the spectrum of aging, and ultimately, care robots are one small part of this experience. Rather than focusing on solving for a particular challenge with a particular product, designers must examine the role of care robots in the context of the broader experience of aging and the system of elder care.

If social connection is a uniquely human advantage, where can robots provide unique value where humans can’t? Unlike humans, care robots never tire or get frustrated and are reliable and consistent 24 hours a day. For active seniors aging in place, care robots might look more like a typical home assistant that helps people connect with far-away family members or supports them in daily tasks and logistics. For those living in a group home, care robots might take some of the burden of manual tasks off of caregivers so that they have more time to socialize and connect with residents. For the elderly facing cognitive challenges, care robots might provide continual engagement and mental stimulation that slows cognitive decline.

It is critical to understand the role of care robots in the broader system of caring for aging populations, in order to ensure that technology is helping people age with fulfillment and dignity.

Amplifying human connection

The ethics of care-bots have been researched and studied for decades in anticipation of the moment that AI and robotic technologies would be sufficiently advanced to turn theory and principles into behavioral design and code. From an innovation perspective, that moment is now: the first generation of non-trivial care-bots are in development and being deployed.

Care robotics are an illustrative case study for the difficult challenges we face at cutting edge of responsible innovation. The compounding and accelerating returns of new technologies have made it so we can develop technologies well beyond our understanding of what we should make.

The responsible design of robots involved in “caring” and being “social” is an incredibly tricky thing to get right. The very human bond created between giver and receiver of care is at the very essence of our human experience. Thus, care-bots should not be seen as “freeing” us from the burden of care, but helping us provide better, more human caregiving practices. After all, the future we aspire to should strengthen our unique social gifts to amplify human connection and dignity.