IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2016 - 74

technology policies support the introduction of intelligent machines in these fields. However, the majority of
the participants did not believe that we would come to
rely completely on intelligent machines within the next
3.5
ten years, even in the most accepted field of the driving
scenario. Therefore, it is important to consider the coex3
istence of humans with intelligent machines rather than
considering replacement of humans by such machines.
2.5
In addition, we need to consider the reasons why people
want or do not want to introduce technology to these
scenarios. While some people accept machines
2
"because they reduce mistakes" or "are more reliable" or
"more realistic" compared to humans, others have the
1.5
opposite perspective and state that humans are more
reliable and realistic for conducting tasks. Prior work on
1
human-robot interaction (HRI) indicates favorable and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
positive attitudes toward domestic robots [7], [8]. HowevIMS SSH PM SF Non IMS Public
er, our result implies that investigating the trust involved
in not only human-machine but also human-human relations might be the key to considering societies that can
FIguRe 5. The result showing opinions about IMS. The
answers revealed that each group had significantly different
coexist with intelligent machines. SSH researchers can
perceptions of all ten questions.
contribute significantly to this research area.
Regarding the differences among stakeholders, we
society," and "do not know," Figure 6 reveals that the
could see that IMS researchers and SF writers/editors/
respondents considered the most appropriate phase to
critics were very enthusiastic about the societal introducbe the practical phase, rather than the idea or basic
tion of IMS. On the other hand, while SF writers/editors/
phase (Chi-square = 421.237, p < 0.0001).
critics were very pessimistic regarding IMS potential for
unpredictable risks and very eager to be engaged in IMS
Discussion
impact evaluation, the IMS researchers do not consider
The main contribution of our paper is that we identify
highly about unpredictable risks and consider IMS
differences among various scenarios and stakeholders
researchers can think of the social implications of IMS.
regarding their perceptions of future human-machine
They also tend to think that the direction of the R&D of
relations. Among the eight scenarios mentioned earlier,
IMS should be decided by experts, and were rather relucmore people relied on IMS for driving, disaster preventant to share their expertise with other communities.
tion, and military activities. The current science and
This is opposite to SSH researchers. Therefore, our
results indica te t ha t IMS
researchers and SF writers/editors/critics are passive about
SSH
public engagement and rather
reluctant to share their expertise
PM
with other communities. The
imaginations of SF writers influSF
ence IMS researchers and,
recently, more collaboration
IMS
than ever before was seen
between there researchers and
Non IMS
the SF communities. However,
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
considerable work remains to be
(%)
done in promoting the collaboraPractical
No Need ELSI
Idea
Don't Know
tions of these stakeholders. In
No Need Dialogue
Basic Improvement
contrast to these positive attitudes about engagement with
IMS evaluation, the public mainFIguRe 6. The figure illustrates answers to the question about the appropriate phase to
consider ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of IMS.
tained a neutral opinion about
4

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

DECember 2016

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