Dr Caroline Emmer De Albuquerque Green from the Institute for Ethics in AI at the University of Oxford has commented on the growing discussion around the use of humanoid robots, or ‘carebots’, in caregiving roles. The idea of carebots supporting daily activities, such as cooking, cleaning, and providing companionship, is gaining attention as societies face shortages of care workers and increased demand due to an aging population.
Green notes that while there is hope that carebots could improve efficiency and quality of life for those needing support, concerns remain about their impact on human relationships and whether they can deliver on their promises. She highlights a recent study from Japan indicating low social acceptance of carebots, with privacy concerns about sharing personal information with technology companies being a significant issue.
According to Green, “The familiar media narrative about the carebot is really one aspect of a much larger and very necessary conversation around the future we envision for social care provision and technology.” She emphasizes that technology already plays an essential role in caregiving and will likely become more integrated over time. However, she cautions against focusing solely on specific technologies like carebots when considering improvements to social care.
Green stresses the importance of continued investment in training and recognizing both professional and family caregivers who will be responsible for deploying these systems. “Importantly, we need continued investment in the recognition and training of care workers and family caregivers, who will be the people deploying these systems: it will be they who bear witness to the benefits, risks and harms of technology in care environments and for this reason they need to know what to look out for.”
She also points out that concerns regarding new technologies should not be dismissed but instead investigated thoroughly. Feedback from participants in Oxford’s Project on Generative AI in Social Care revealed fears among care workers about job security, pay conditions, increased workloads, and requirements to use personal devices for work-related tasks.
For those receiving care, Green observes that access to compassionate human support remains crucial despite potential entertainment or companionship offered by robots. She warns that relying too heavily on technological solutions without investing simultaneously in human resources could threaten access to meaningful human interaction.
“People receiving care want positive human interaction, and while a chatty carebot may be entertaining or even a good conversational partner, being able to access compassionate human support is crucial,” she says.
Finally, Green underscores that people value having control over their lives—including decisions about which technologies are used in their homes—and advocates for a diverse ecosystem where technological tools like carebots complement rather than replace other forms of support.
The debate surrounding carebots extends beyond technical capabilities; it involves broader questions about values within society’s approach to caregiving and how discussions around technology are shaped.