Abstract

Introduction. The article analyzes the problems that arise during communication between a person and a social robot. Barriers that prevent a person from adapting to the specifics of communication tools embedded in the software of devices with artificial intelligence are revealed. Human reactions to the behavior of humanoid robots in various conditions of their use are analyzed. The presence of a person's desire to adapt to the behavior pattern of the device is checked. The authors also test the hypothesis of the emergence of hybrid communication as a way to overcome the barriers of human communication with smart devices. Methodology and sources.The approach implemented in the article interprets the communication of a person and a social robot as a similar subject-subject interaction of performers of social roles by heterogeneous communication participants who implement a model of mutual adaptation to the reactions of the Other. As the key methods there was used the method of observation, mediated by digital recordings of human communication situations with various types of devices. A nonobtrusive (unobtrusive) research method was applied, which excludes the contact of the researcher with the object of study. The sources were audiovisual documents containing recordings of a demonstration of human communication with a social robot.Results and discussion.A weak orientation of a person to adjust his reactions to actions on the part of a social robot with simultaneous attempts to modify his behavior with a focus on imitation of the robot was revealed. The development of hybrid reactions is affected by an increase in the duration of human communication with the device. To a greater extent, hybrid forms of communication continue to be present in the software embedded in social robots of its communication with a person.Conclusion. In the process of reproducing the stable nature of communication in the peculiarities of the behavior of each of the parties, there were ways of responding to overcome the blockade, not foreseen either by the developers of the algorithms or by a person entering into communication with a robot with the expectation of programmed “machine behavior”. Such a process remains predominantly one-sided and is not supplemented by the activity of the other party – a person, their participation in the synthesis of natural and artificial languages, which is impossible without modification of the language of the person oneself, and their cultural and bodily modifications.