Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper critiques the prevailing dichotomy in the philosophy of robotics—robots as existential threat versus robots as legal persons—and proposes a conceptual framework for the gradual entry of humanoid robots into the family, culture, memory, responsibility, and daily life. The central argument is that a home robot should not enter the household with full capabilities at once. Instead, it must advance through a version-by-version path of practical competence. Each version carries an ethical core and operational scope appropriate to its stage. The paper formulates a set of normative principles concerning human control, erasable personal memory, a family constitution for the robot, responsible disobedience, protection of children's personality formation, retirement, cultural citizenship, public identifiability, insurance, and the avoidance of emotional exploitation. The result is a gradual path toward coexistence rather than replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbarzadeh Alireza (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: