Today, robots sharing our public places are very rare. The aim of social robots and service robots is to avoid crime, moving towards humble winds, positive emotions and obedience. In some ways, it makes sense – do you really want to match a hotel screaming with a delivery robot in a hotel? Probably not, even if you are in the city of New York and trying to absorb local culture.
In other ways, this passive social robot design aligns with patriarchal standards that associates the help with subjugation. Following such old social norms in robot design, may have become ill since Can help strengthen old or harmful ideas Such as restricting people’s rights and only reflects the needs of majority-ignition users.
In Mai Robotics Lab at Oregon State UniversityWe work with a fickle spirit and enjoy challenging problematic norms that include “humble” interactions and social roles. So we decided to experiment with robots that use dishonesty around humans. After all, many people are using more dishonest language than ever in 2025. Why does the robot not have a chance?
Why and how to study cursed robot
Social standards in the United States suggest that cursing the robot will raise people in most contexts incorrectly, as the oath takes mainly negative meaning. However, some previous researches show that cursing Team can increase harmony And Attached humorSome members of the society (such as women) are often expected Avoid risk Through impurity. We were surprised whether cursing robots would be seen negatively, or if they might offer benefits in some situations.
We decided to study the robot that cursed in the context of the response to the mistakes. Previous work has already shown in human robot interaction Reply to the error (Instead of ignoring this) Robot can be considered more positively in human-inflammatory places, especially in the case of individual and service robots. And one Study It was found that the foul language in a robot is more excusable, compared to other impure PAS.
Keeping this previous work in mind, we generated videos with three common types of robot failure: colliding in a table, leaving an object, and failing to understand an object. We exceeded these conditions with three types of reactions from the robot: no oral reaction, a non-immunity oral declaration, and a clear oral declaration. We then asked people to rate robots on things like capacity, discomfort and probability using standard parameters in an online survey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hydn5zla07q
Do people think about our cursed robot
Overall, we were surprised how much acceptable swearing in the study participants, especially within an early group of students of Oregon State University, but even among the general public. The curse had no negative effects among the college students, and even some positive effects, when we deleted a curse (God *** this), which seemed to be a strong negative way compared to other CUSS words.
In fact, the university participants rated as a swearing -in robot Most socially And most of the humorous, and non-immunity and explain robot reactions were equal to social heat, capacity, discomfort, anthropological and probability parameters. The general public underwent non-profit and unholy robots as equivalent on most parameters, although the explosive reactions were mostly liked the most discomfort and non-explosive reactions. We believe that the university students were accepting a little more about cursing the robot due to the progressive culture of the campus, where the curse is considered a Pacadilo.
Since not only represents the real -life interaction in an online setting, we also conducted a final replica study with a robot, which made errors while distributing dudy bags to the members of the campus community in the state of Oregon, which strengthened our previous results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhhh4yni1i
We have presented this task, which represents a well-designed series of empirical experiments with interesting results and replication for many different magazines and conferences. Despite the consistent enthusiastic reviewers’ comments, no editors have yet accepted our work for publication – it is the type of paper that is nervous to touch the editors. Currently, the work is reviewing the fourth time, for the possible inclusion in robot and human interactive communication (RO-Man) at the 2025 IEEE International Conference, titled “title” titled “title” titled “title”Oh f ** ki! How do people feel about robots that take advantage of impurity?,
Give a chance to cursing robots
Depending on our results, we feel that cursing the robot is a chance! Our findings suggest that robots usually have a slightly negative and some reverse, especially in open -minded places such as university complexes. Even for the general public, the reactions to errors with impurity led to very little disrespect than our expectations. Our data showed that people cared more about whether the robot has accepted its error whether they swear or not.
People have some reservation about cursing the robot, especially when it comes to comfort and possibility, so the words may require thoughtfulness to apply curse at the right time. For example, as humans do, the robot should possibly hold their oath words back around children and be more careful in settings that usually demand cleaner language. Robot practices can also consider individual users on survey about impurity as they establish new techniques in individual settings – rather allow robotic systems to learn hardly, probably isolated users in this process.
As more robots enter our day to day spaces, they are obliged to make mistakes. It is important how they react to these errors. Fundamentally, our work suggests that people like robots that notice when a mistake and react to this error. And it seems that a range of styles in response, from impure to worldly, can work well. So we invite the designers to give a chance to robots!
From your site articles
Related articles around web
