Embodied AI Position Paper
Throughout this module you have engaged with embodied AI as a technical field, a philosophical argument, an economic force, and an ethical challenge. Now you will take a position. A position paper is not a summary of what others think — it is your own carefully reasoned argument for a specific answer to a contested question, backed by evidence, aware of counterarguments, and honest about what you do not know. This is the hardest kind of writing: it requires intellectual courage to commit to a view, analytical discipline to support it rigorously, and intellectual honesty to acknowledge where reasonable people disagree.
What Makes a Good Position Paper Question
Not every question is suitable for a position paper. A good position paper question has three features. First, it must be genuinely contested: reasonable, informed people must be able to take different positions based on different values or different interpretations of the evidence. 'Do robots have motors?' is not a position paper question. 'Should general-purpose humanoid robots be permitted in public schools?' is one. Second, it must be specific enough to argue rigorously. 'Are robots good or bad?' is too broad to support a tight argument. 'Should the EU impose a mandatory human-in-the-loop requirement for any embodied AI operating in healthcare facilities?' is specific enough for precise analysis. Third, the question must have stakes: your answer must matter for some real decision, policy, or value. Position papers that answer trivial questions produce trivial arguments.
The most common weakness in student position papers is hedging: writing 'there are arguments on both sides' without ever actually taking a position. A position paper requires you to commit. You can acknowledge counterarguments and note genuine uncertainty — but you must ultimately tell the reader what you believe and why. 'I believe X, for reasons Y and Z, though I acknowledge the serious counterargument that A' is a position. 'Some say X and some say not-X' is a summary, not an argument.
Suggested Position Paper Questions
The following questions are all genuinely contested, specific enough to argue, and consequential. Choose one — or propose your own question with instructor approval. Question 1: Should humanoid robots be deployed in elder care facilities for daily personal care tasks before achieving human-level reliability? What level of reliability is 'good enough,' and who should decide? Question 2: Does the embodiment hypothesis provide a compelling scientific case against ever achieving human-level cognition in disembodied AI systems? Or is embodiment one pathway to general intelligence, not the only one? Question 3: Should robotics companies be required to disclose the full sensor data their deployed robots collect to the public agencies that regulate them? What privacy protections should govern such disclosure? Question 4: Is a strict liability regime — holding manufacturers fully responsible for all harm caused by their embodied AI systems — the right legal standard, or would it create perverse incentives against deploying beneficial systems? Question 5: Should school systems invest in teaching students to work alongside robots now, or would such education lock in a view of the future that assumes automation of physical work rather than critically examining it? Question 6: Given the dual-use potential of humanoid robots — tools for welfare and instruments of surveillance or violence — should international agreements limit their development, analogous to arms control treaties?
Write Your Position Paper
- Select one of the six questions above, or propose an original question with the same three features (genuinely contested, specific, consequential).
- Your position paper must include all of the following sections:
- 1. Introduction (1 paragraph): State your question, explain why it is important, and give your thesis — your position in one clear sentence.
- 2. Background (1-2 paragraphs): Provide the technical or contextual information a reader needs to understand the debate. Draw on concepts and facts from this module. Do not merely summarize the module — select what is relevant to your specific argument.
- 3. Your Argument (2-3 paragraphs): Make your positive case. Each paragraph should advance a specific reason in support of your thesis. Use concrete evidence or examples. Reasoning should be tight and traceable: premise leads to conclusion.
- 4. Counterargument and Response (1-2 paragraphs): Identify the strongest argument against your position — not a weak straw man, but the best version of the opposing view. Then explain why you believe your position stands despite this counterargument.
- 5. Conclusion (1 paragraph): Restate your thesis, summarize the weight of evidence, and if appropriate describe what would change your mind.
- Length: 600-900 words. No outside research required — draw on what you have learned in this module. Cite lessons by name when you reference specific claims.
- Evaluation criteria: clarity of thesis, quality of reasoning, honest engagement with counterarguments, specificity of evidence, and precision of language.
- Due before the final module check lesson.
One of the intellectual virtues tested by position papers is knowing what would change your mind. A position held so tightly that no evidence could shift it is dogma, not reasoned argument. In your conclusion, try to honestly state: 'I would revise my position if [specific evidence or argument appeared].' This is not weakness — it is intellectual integrity.
Which of the following is the most important difference between a position paper and a summary of a debate?
Why is 'there are arguments on both sides of the humanoid robot debate' an insufficient thesis for a position paper on that topic?