<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[&quot;A common design assumption has been that lifelike, socially expressive robots earn more trust, which protects a robot’s “reputation” even when it makes mistakes.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p class="quote-inline">RE: <a href="https://newsie.social/@TheConversationUS/117035253434471058" rel="nofollow noopener"><span>https://</span><span>newsie.social/@TheConversation</span><span>US/117035253434471058</span></a></p><p>"A common design assumption has been that lifelike, socially expressive robots earn more trust, which protects a robot’s “reputation” even when it makes mistakes.</p><p>However, research is beginning to show that that assumption is faulty."</p><p>I've been saying this: It's one of those things that look cool in scifi but are impractical in the real world - a wildly development-heavy &amp; expensive complication that creates new problems without solving any. </p><p><a href="https://helvede.net/tags/tech" rel="tag">#<span>tech</span></a> <a href="https://helvede.net/tags/design" rel="tag">#<span>design</span></a></p>]]></description><link>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/b4680bda-15eb-458c-b160-9a4c393e715d/a-common-design-assumption-has-been-that-lifelike-socially-expressive-robots-earn-more-trust-which-protects-a-robot-s-reputation-even-when-it-makes-mistakes.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 04:42:34 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/b4680bda-15eb-458c-b160-9a4c393e715d.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 05:14:53 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>