IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2016 - 70

Table 1. Response Rates of each Community.
LISTSERV/mailing list/Facebook Community

Response Rates

the Japanese society for Artificial intelligence (JsAi)

1%

64/ca.4300

the Virtual Reality society of Japan (VRsJ)

1%

12/ca.1000

hAi symposium 2015 (5-6 Dec)

15%

20/ca.130

Workshop on interactive systems and software (2-4 Dec)

3%

5/ca.170

Japan Association for the contemporary and Applied philosophy (JAcAp)

3%

9/ca.300

Japanese society for science and technology studies (Jssts)

4%

18/ca.500

science, technology, and society Network Japan

29%

19/65

Japan Association for philosophy of science

3%

15/ca.500

philosophy of science society

1%

6/ca.500

preparatory meeting of "Robot Law society" Facebook group

2%

7/288

the Japan society for Research policy and innovation management (JsRpim)

6%

57/ca.900

the science & technology experts Network by science and technology Foresight center

23%

464/2060

personal mail from Research institute of science and technology for society

-

18/-

sF

science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of Japan (sFFWJ)

14%

28/ca.200

other

email from acquaintances

-

80/-

ict

ssh

pm

Whereas SF writers/editors/critics
comprised the most eager group to be
engaged in IMS impact evaluation, the
public was the least interested group.

asked the respondents to consider the immediate
future, that is, approximately the next ten years. The
questionnaire consisted of five sections: a) images of
the spread of IMS ten years before and after the present
year; b)  acceptable IMS in various scenarios and the
associated reasons; c) the preferred direction of IMS
development; d) opinions regarding societies using IMS
and the appropriate phase for considering the ethical,
legal, and social implications (ELSI) of IMS; and e) a
face sheet.

Scenarios
Using brief descriptions, we identified eight scenarios in
everyday life where IMS could be introduced:
1) Driving: handling, speed control, navigation, parallel
parking, and collision avoidance.

70

2) Child nursing: playing, lulling, watching, feeding,
bathing, and disciplining.
3) Elder care: excretion, bathing, feeding, transferring,
and companioning.
4) Life event decision-making: concerning entering
schools, applying and changing occupations, marriage and divorce, pregnancy and childbirth, and
inheritance.
5) Healthcare: dieting, physical exercise, sleeping,
smoking, and drinking alcohol.
6) Creative activities: music, painting, writing, and game
creation.
7) Disaster prevention: rescuing, searching, clearing rubble, distribution assistance, and damage
prediction.
8) Military activities: reconnaissance, guarding, combat, spying, defending, rescuing, and distribution
assistance.
Respondents were asked to select acceptable
human-machine relations for the eight scenarios
within the next ten years from the following five
options through an Internet-based questionnaire:
1) only humans should do, 2) humans will take the
initiatives and use IMS as a tool, 3) IMS will take
the initiative and operate under the management of
humans, 4) rely on IMS almost completely, and 5)
do not know.

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

DECember 2016
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2016
