机器人劳动是劳动吗？配送机器人与公共空间中的劳动政治
Is Robot Labor Labor? Delivery Robots and the Politics of Work in Public Space
AI总结：
本文探讨配送机器人在公共空间中如何重新配置劳动，揭示机器人特权及人类与机器人的互动差异。
摘要：
随着人行道配送机器人越来越深入城市生活，本文以一个批判性问题开始：机器人劳动是劳动吗？这不仅是一个修辞问题，而是邀请我们更加关注机器人劳动所涉及的社会和政治安排。基于在首尔两个智能城市区的民族志田野调查，我们研究了配送机器人劳动如何被集体维持。尽管机器人行动常被描述为自主且高效，但我们显示，每次成功的配送实际上都是分布式社会技术成就的结果——依赖于人类劳动、监管协调和社会适应。我们主张配送机器人不取代劳动，而是重新配置劳动——使某些形式更加明显（机器人表现）的同时，使其他形式更加隐晦（人类和制度支持）。与工业机器人不同，配送机器人在共享公共空间中运作，与日常行人互动，并嵌入政策和进步叙事中。在这些空间中，我们识别出"机器人特权"——人类通常让步于机器人——以及观察者之间"可爱"与"可敬"的截然不同的看法。我们贡献了机器人劳动作为集体构成的理论重构，对韩国智能城市自动化的实证洞察，并呼吁人机交互研究更深入地关注劳动和空间政治，以更好地理论化面向公众的机器人。
英文摘要：
As sidewalk delivery robots become increasingly integrated into urban life, this paper begins with a critical provocation: Is robot labor labor? More than a rhetorical question, this inquiry invites closer attention to the social and political arrangements that robot labor entails. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork across two smart-city districts in Seoul, we examine how delivery robot labor is collectively sustained. While robotic actions are often framed as autonomous and efficient, we show that each successful delivery is in fact a distributed sociotechnical achievement--reliant on human labor, regulatory coordination, and social accommodations. We argue that delivery robots do not replace labor but reconfigure it--rendering some forms more visible (robotic performance) while obscuring others (human and institutional support). Unlike industrial robots, delivery robots operate in shared public space, engage everyday passersby, and are embedded in policy and progress narratives. In these spaces, we identify "robot privilege"--humans routinely yielding to robots--and distinct perceptions between casual observers ("cute") and everyday coexisters ("admirable"). We contribute a conceptual reframing of robot labor as a collective assemblage, empirical insights into South Korea's smart-city automation, and a call for HRI to engage more deeply with labor and spatial politics to better theorize public-facing robots.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
