REKLAMCILIKTA VE PAZARLAMADA YENİ AKTÖR: SOSYAL ROBOTLAR

Year 2023, , 919 - 942, 30.09.2023

Sefa Erbaş

https://doi.org/10.48070/erciyesakademi.1309995

Abstract

İnsanın doğa ve diğer her şey üzerindeki merkezi konumundan kaynaklı egoist düşüncesi, dünyaya hiç bu kadar zarar vermemişti. Antroposen olarak adlandırılan bu çağ, insanın tüketimle var oluşunu ifade etmesi ve bunun için her yolu mübah görmesi olarak nitelendirilir. Hümanist anlayışa dayalı bu sorunlu benmerkezcilik; insanın, diğer canlıların ve insan dışının (nesne) bir arada performatif ilişkisine dayalı posthümanizm düşünce zemininde tartışılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu anlayışın somut yansımalarından biri; yapay zeka teknolojisindeki gelişmelere dayalı, sosyal robotların insanla kurduğu etkileşimin, sıvılaşmış bir teknolojik deneyime yol açmasıdır: Robotları çelikten ibaret, toplumsal güç ilişkilerinde egemen bir fail olarak görmek yerine, kapasitelerine göre ağa dahil olan insan, insan olmayan arasındaki heterojen ve akışkan ilişkideki, eyleyen konumu üzerinden düşünebiliriz. Benzer şekilde, Bruno Latour’un Aktör-Ağ Teorisi; teknolojiyi bir töz olarak değil, süreç olarak yorumlar. Sosyal robotların; taklit, jest-doğal dil iletişimi gibi özellikleri sayesinde duygu ve etkileşim temelli asistan, refakatçi veya evcil hayvan olarak gündelik hayatta daha fazla görünür olması, insanın sonunu hazırlayacak distopik bir kurguya alternatif olarak gösterilebilir. Çalışmada, insan-makine arasındaki etkileşimi, teknolojik/sosyal belirlenimci bir perspektiften ziyade, bir ağa dahil olan eyleyenler üzerinden düşünmenin imkanına değindim. Ayrıca, Aktör-Ağ yaklaşımından hareketle, pazarlamada ve reklam sektöründe sosyal robot kullanımının tüketici deneyimlerini nasıl etkilediğine yönelik bazı araştırma sonuçlarını değerlendirdim.

Keywords

Eleştirel posthümanizm, Aktör-ağ teorisi, Yapay zekâ, Sosyal robotlar, Reklamcılık

Supporting Institution

Çalışma, herhangi bir kurum ya da kuruluş tarafından desteklenmemiştir.

Project Number

Çalışma, bir proje kapsamında hazırlanmamıştır.

Thanks

Çalışma; herhangi bir kişi, kurum ya da kuruluş tarafından desteklenmediği için teşekkür beyanına gerek görülmemiştir.

NEW ACTOR IN ADVERTISING AND MARKETING: SOCIAL ROBOTS

Abstract

Humankind's egocentric idea deriving from their central position within nature and everything else has never damaged the world so much. This age, which is heralded as the anthropocene, is regarded in accordance with the fact that the humankind expresses their existence through consumption and interprets all ways convenient for this. This turbulent egocentrism depending on a humanist understanding has started to be discussed on the basis of posthumanist performative relationship of human, other living beings and non-human being (technology) together. One of the concrete reflections of this understandings thanks to the acceleration of artificial intelligence technology, the interaction of social robots with human beings culminates in a liquefied technological experience: We can conceive robots in terms of their acting position in the heterogeneous and fluid relationship between human and nonhuman, which is contained within the network based on their capacities instead of regarding them as steel and a dominant agent in social power relations. Thanks to the features of social robots such as imitation, gesture-natural language communication, the increasing involvement of social robots in daily life as an assistant, a companion or a pet based on emotion and interaction could be depicted as an alternative to the idea of a dystopian technology which will cause the end of human beings. Within the study, I touched upon the possibililty of interaction between human and machine through actors involved in a network rather than technological deterministic approach. In addition, I evaluated some research results on how the use of social robots in the marketing and advertising industry affects consumer experiences, based on the Actor-Network approach.

Keywords

Critical posthumanism, Actor-network theory, Artificial intelligence, Social robots, Advertising

Project Number

Çalışma, bir proje kapsamında hazırlanmamıştır.

References

• Abubshait, A., & Wiese, E. (2017). You look human, but act like a machine: agent appearance and behavior modulate different aspects of human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-12.
• Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2014). Aydınlanmanın diyalektiği felsefi fragmanlar (Çev. N. Ülner ve E. Öztarhan Karadoğan). Kabalcı Yayıncılık.
• Ads of the World. https://www.adsoftheworld.com/campaigns/the-social-robot
• Ağın, B. (2020). Posthümanizm kavram kuram bilim-kurgu. Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Appel, M., Lugrin, B., Kühle, M., & Heindl, C. (2021). The emotional robotic storyteller: On the influence of affect congruency on narrative transportation, robot perception, and persuasion. Computers in Human Behavior, 120.
• Asimov, I. (2022). Ben, robot (Çev. E. Odabaş). İthaki Yayınları.
• Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Systems. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/artificial_intelligence/artificial_intelligence_tutorial.pdf
• Avrupa Birliği 2018 Yaşlanma raporu. https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/news/2018-ageing-report-policy- challenges-ageing-societies-2018-05-25_en
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Barla, J. (2019). The techno-apparatus of bodily production a new materialist theory of technology and the body. Transcript Verlag.
• Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Sci. Robot, 3.
• Beyinsizler. Meta, 48 milyon makale ile eğittiği robotun fişini çekti https://beyinsizler.net/meta-48-milyon- makale-ile-egittigi-robotun-fisini-cekti/
• Braidotti, R. (2021). İnsan sonrası bilgi (1. Baskı). Kolektif Kitap.
• Breazeal, C. (2001). Affective interaction between humans and robots. MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab.
• Bryant, L. R. (2011). The democracy of objects. Open Humanities Press.
• Čaić, M., Mahr, D., & Schröder G. (2019). Value of social robots in services: social cognition perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 463–478.
• Chin, C. (2018). Artificial consciousness: from impossibility to multiplicity. İçinde V. C. Müller (Ed.). Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence 2017 (ss. 3-18). Springer.
• Cominelli, L., Mazzei, D., & de Rossi, D.E. (2018). SEAI: Social emotional artificial intelligence based on a damasio’s theory of mind. Frontiers, (5), 1-20.
• Cresswell, K. M., Worth, A., & Sheik, A. (2010). Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Medical İnformatics And Decision Making, 10(1), 1-11.
• Cross, E., & Ramsey, R. (2021). Mind meets machine: towards a cognitive science of human–machine interactions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 200-212.
• Crutzen, P.J. & Stoermer E.F. (2000). The anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter, 41, 17.
• Çelikel, S.B. (2013). Endüstriyel tasarımda paradigma kaymaları: Bruno Latour’a özel bir ilgiyle [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi] İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• DiPaola, D., Ostrowski, A. K., Spiegel, R., Darling, K., & Breazeal, C. (2022). Children's perspectives of advertising with social robots: a policy investigation. 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
• Draskovic, N. (2022). The marketing potentials of social robots: A literature review. International Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing, 11(1), 110-120.
• Doğan, M. (2020). Yapay zekâ ve bilinç problemi. Çizgi Kitabevi.
• Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Emo. https://living.ai/emo/
• Erbaş, S. (2022). Preface to the future (Internet of bodies). İçinde D. Yengin, H. Çiftçi (Eds.). A’dan Z’ye İletişim Çalışmaları-8. İKSAD Yayınevi.
• Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A Survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (42), 143–166.
• Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K. & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behaviour, (93), 279–289.
• Han-Pile, B. (2010). The Death of Man: Foucault and Anti-humanism. T. O’Leary & C. Falzon (Eds.). Foucault and Philosophy (p. 118-142). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hall, L. (2017). How We feel about robots that feel?” https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/10/24/148259/how-we-feel-about-robots-that-feel/
• Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence and robotics: Shaking up the business world and society at large. Journal of Business Research, 124, 405–407.
• Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, (80), 65-108. Türkçesi: Siborg manifestosu geç yirminci yüzyılda bilim, teknoloji ve sosyalist-feminizm (Çev. G. Pusar), Başka Yer 2009, 45-90. Metis Yayınları.
• Haraway, D. (2015). N. Katherine Hayles and humanist technological posthumanism. İçinde D. Cecchetto (Ed.). Humanesis: sound and technological posthumanism. Minnesota Scholarship Online.
• Hofstadter, D.R., & Dennett, D.C. (2008). Aklın g’özü benlik ve ruh üzerine hayaller ve düşünceler. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
• Inga, J., Ruess, M., Robens, J. H., Nelius, T., Rothfuß, S., Kille, S., Dahlinger, P., Lindenmann, A., Thomaschke, R., & Neumann, G. (2023). Human-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human- machine systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 170, 102926.
• IRBin. Ads of The World The Intelligent Recycle Bin https://www.adsoftheworld.com/campaigns/irbin-the- intelligent-recycle-bin
• Jensen, C.B. (2003). Latour and Pickering: post-human perspectives on science becoming and normativity. İçinde D. Ihde, & Evan M. Selinger (Eds.). Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality (ss. 225-41) in. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Karakaş, Ö. (2021). Antroposen, kapitolosen ve insan sonrası düşünce. Pasajlar Dergisi Posthümanizm, 3(7), 145- 169.
• Kharub, I., Lwin, M., Khan, A., Mubin, O., & Shahid, S. (2022). The Effectiveness of robot-enacted messages to reduce the consumption of High-Sugar Energy Drinks. Informatics, 9(2), 49.
• Küçükalp, K. (2016). Çağdaş felsefede farklılık tartışmaları. Emin Yayınları.
• Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. İçinde W. Bijker., & John Law (Eds.). Shaping technology-building society: studies in sociotechnical change (ss. 225-259). MIT Press Cambridge Mass.
• Latour, B. (1996). On Actor-Network Theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt Nomos, 47(4), 369-381.
• Latour, B. (2008). Tarde ve toplumsalın sonu, Tesmeralsekdiz: Toplumsal Araştırmalar ve Sanat Şebekesi, Yıl: 2, Sayı: 3.
• Latour, B. (2021). Toplumsalı yeniden toplama Aktör-Ağ Teorisine giriş (Çev. N. Bingöl). Tellekt Yayınları.
• Lee, S.A. ve Oh, H. (2021). Anthropomorphism and its implications for advertising hotel brands. Journal of Business Research, 129, 455-464.
• Marsh, G.P. (1864). Man and nature: Or physical geography as modified by human action. Kessinger Publishing.
• My Real Baby. https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/MyRealBabyPDF.pdf
• Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat?. F. Doruker (çev.). İçinde Aklın g’özü benlik ve ruh üzerine hayaller ve düşünceler (s. 377-289). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
• OpenAI. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/
• Paro. http://www.parorobots.com/
• Pierce, B. (2018). How are robots’ reasons for action grounded? In Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence 2017 Conference Paper (ss. 73-80). Springer.
• Robots. https://robots.ieee.org/robots/
• Sætra, H.S. (2019). The ghost in the machine being human in the age of ai and machine learning. Human Arenas, (2), 60–78.
• Sammobile. (2020). Samsung shows how NEON artificial humans fit into banking of the future. https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-neon-artificial-humans-future-banks-shinhan/
• Samsung Research. https://research.samsung.com/news/-CES-2022-Samsung-Research-New-Tech-Trio- Samsung-Bot-Handy-Housework-robot
• School Robots. https://www.robotlab.com/classroom-robots
• Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
• Shiomi, M., Shinozawa, K., Nakagawa, Y., Miyashita, T., Sakamoto, T., Terakubo, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2013). Recommendation effects of a social robot for advertisement-use context in a shopping mall. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 251-262.
• Song, C.S., & Kim, Y.K. (2022). The role of the human-robot interaction in consumers’ acceptance of humanoid retail service robots. Journal of Business Research, 146, 489-503.
• Strasser, A. (2018). Social cognition and artificial agents. In Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence (ss. 106-114). Springer.
• Tegmark. M. (2019). Yaşam 3.0 yapay zekâ çağında insan olmak. Pegasus Yayıncılık.
• The Robot Report. (2021). RoboAds introduces the world’s first mobile advertising robot https://www.therobotreport.com/roboads-introduces-the-worlds-first-mobile advertising-robot/
• Tripathi, A. K. (2008). Dimension of philosophy of technologies: critical theory and democratization of technologies. Ubiquity. ACM New York, NY, USA.
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
• Tutorials. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/practice/index.htm
• Van Pinxteren, M. M., Wetzels, R. W., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Wetzels, M. (2019). Trust in humanoid robots: implications for. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 507-518.
• Wong, C. J., Tay, Y. L., Lew, L. W., Koh, H. F., Xiong, Y., & Wu, Y. (2018). Advbot: Towards understanding human preference in a human-robot interaction scenario. 15th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics And Vision (ICARCV)
• Yıldız, B. https://teknosafari.net/cocuklar-icin-uretilmis-egitici-bir-robot-moxie/
• https://beyinsizler.net/meta-48-milyon-makale-ile-egittigi-robotun-fisini-cekti/