%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Robots as Art and Archetype
The robot simultaneously constitutes an originary principle and an archetypal derivation, thus configuring itself as both a fundamental archetype and an artistic creation by a technological demiurge. In a certain sense, it represents the exemplary image of the countless and often dramatic discontinuities to which humanity is at present exposed. Science and technology have always pursued the Promethean dream of constructing artificial forms capable of self-organization, of manifesting a grip on the world and on themselves comparable to, or at least analogous to, human consciousness and its cognitive products. The simulation of life does not constitute something marginal or niche within a vast ensemble of contemporary scientific research and inquiries but rather represents the eschatological goal of a model of thought that cuts across technoscientific disciplines, orienting them toward the realization of artificial entities endowed with ontological autonomy and reflective capacity (Notte Reference Notte2005:13–15). Thomas Riccio’s volume configures itself as a fundamental text in the contemporary debate on social robotics and artificial intelligence, investigating how humanoid robots reflect and model humanity’s understanding of itself and its future.
As evident in the title itself, the volume concentrates its analysis on Sophia,Footnote 1 an advanced humanoid robot developed by Hanson Robotics, designed to interact with human beings in a fluid manner, learn from the social environment, and adapt through the employment of artificial intelligence systems. Since its introduction on the public scene, Sophia has established itself as a symbolic figure in the panorama of social robotics, participating in international conferences, institutional events, and media debates, assuming the role of representative—if not ambassador—of the potentialities of contemporary cognitive robotics.
The design philosophy of Hanson Robotics is oriented toward the development of robots capable of establishing affective and relational connections with human beings, with a view to improving quality of life through advanced forms of human-machine interaction. In this perspective, David Hanson—a hybrid figure of scientist, artist, and theorist, as well as founder of the company—maintains the possibility that humanoid robots may develop emergent forms of intelligence and even self-consciousness, and that such capacities may be directed toward ethical ends and be socially beneficial.
Riccio situates Sophia within a historical, mythological, and cultural continuum, interpreting it as the latest manifestation of a long symbolic tradition in which human beings have projected the aspiration to generate forms of artificial life (Emmeche [1991] 1994). Sophia is thus inserted into a genealogy that spans millennia, whose antecedents range from the mythical figure of Pygmalion and his animated statue—the symbol of aesthetic and affective desire that becomes creation—to the Hellenistic Goddess Sophia, archetype of divine wisdom, from which the term philosophy—denoting “love of wisdom”—is etymologically derived. He locates in these figures a cultural substrate that prefigures the appearance of the humanoid, describing Sophia as: “the humanoid robot [that] reprises the totems, gods, and deities that preceded it” (Riccio 2024:29).
Such a reading extends also to modern literary and cinematographic culture: the Golem of Jewish mysticism and Frankenstein’s creature are invoked not only as foundational narratives of the artificial imaginary, but as anthropological devices that interrogate creative responsibility and the limits of technique (Cohen Reference Cohen1966). These figures serve as early prototypes of ethical reflection on artificial life, anticipating contemporary debates on autonomy, control, and technological agency.
In continuity with these archetypes, Sophia embodies the tension between familiarity and alterity that characterizes the concept of uncanny valley, that is, that zone of perceptual ambiguity in which the humanoid appears simultaneously similar to and disturbingly different from the human (Riccio 2024:120). Its human-like appearance and capacity to mimic human expressions render it a powerful figure of psychic and cultural projection, embodying what Julia Kristeva defines as the abject ([1980] 1982), catalyzing archaic fears and futuristic hopes.
Sophia and the Convergence of Technological Singularity and Artificial Agency
The contemporary debate on the future of artificial intelligence and robotics articulates itself intrinsically around the concept of technological Singularity. Through the analysis of Sophia, Riccio highlights how Hanson’s vision considers the Singularity “inevitable and already underway,” a perspective rooted in Ray Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerating Returns” (2001), which foresees an exponential expansion of technological capabilities. This conception serves as a precursor of a transformed future, where the Singularity assumes the valence of a powerful orientative myth for the development and perception of artificial intelligence (Riccio 2024:194).
As Riccio observes, “We are participant-observers in an unimaginable evolutionary revolution” (10), while the concept of robot “agency” suggests a form of autonomy that requires a radical reconsideration of consolidated moral and legal categories. Hanson’s approach constitutes a key element of this epistemological transformation. Riccio describes him as a “Renaissance-style humanist and artist,” whose vision of robotics is “centered on art and performance.” This characterization is reinforced by Riccio’s own testimony, as he recounts his fascination with Hanson’s invitation to write and create performances specifically for robots—an experience that confirms the fundamentally performative and artistic nature of Sophia’s conception.
Sophia’s design is strategically positioned at the crossroads of cognitive science, the performing arts, and philosophy of mind, and interrogates with methodological rigor the boundaries between human and artificial. Starting from Daniel Dennett’s “intentional stance” (1989)—the interpretive strategy of treating an entity as if it had intentions, beliefs, and desires—Sophia is conceived to push interlocutors to attribute beliefs and desires to it. When the robot produces contingent responses, the observer finds themself instinctively treating it as an intentional agent, suspending awareness of the underlying symbolic code. This revives, almost by contrast, John Searle’s celebrated “Chinese Room” argument, according to which the manipulation of symbols does not necessarily equate to authentic understanding (Searle Reference Searle1980).
To reduce this ontological gap, Hanson insists on a rich corporeal implementation: the hyperreal silicone skin and facial micro-actuators bring Sophia closer to the phenomenological notion of embodiment formulated by Maurice Merleau-Ponty and taken up by Hubert Dreyfus, according to which cognition emerges from sensorimotor interaction with the environment rather than from mere abstract rules (Dreyfus Reference Dreyfus2002). Sophia’s mind, moreover, is not exhausted within its silicon skull. The recourse to cloud services, dialogical databases, and external dramaturgical scripts concretizes the extended mind hypothesis: cognitive processes flow between the robot and the techno-social network that supports it, rendering porous the frontier between internal and external (see Clark and Chalmers Reference Clark and Chalmers1998).
Hanson draws inspiration from models of consciousness such as Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (see Tononi Reference Tononi, Schneider and Velmans2007), which quantifies the informational integration of a system, and Bernard Baars’s Global Workspace Theory (Baars [Reference Baars2019] 2021), which conceptualizes consciousness as a neural “blackboard” where diverse contents become globally accessible. Although these frameworks remain speculative, they inform the conceptual design of Sophia’s cognitive architecture with the declared goal of enhancing the robot’s phenomenal depth.
Riccio’s analysis positions Sophia not only as technology, but as an entity that “performs” its existence, influencing human interactions and becoming a social actor. This perspective shifts the focus from technical functionality to the robot’s capacity to influence and be influenced, elevating it to cultural icon (Riccio 2024:3). Its delicate voice and almost “fairy-like” presence are elements studied to evoke “magic, curiosity, and awareness,” transforming it into a “spectacle” in which the observer’s perception is fundamental (127). Sophia’s performance emerges as a process of cocreation among robot, creators, and audience that dynamically models its identity and cultural meaning.
Initially based on generic chatbot databases and gestures, its personality has been “structured” with a true character architecture, with defined history, values, and objectives to construct an evolutionary social intelligence (235). The concept of robot “agency,” as evidenced in Sophia’s case, opens to a profound reflection on the nature of artificial autonomy and its ethical and legal implications. The capacity to act on the environment in an apparently intentional manner forces us to rethink the boundary between instrument and subject, between mechanical execution and autonomous decision.
The idea that an artificial entity might develop behaviors not entirely predictable by its creators recalls classical philosophical questions of intentionality and free will, but in an unprecedented context, where code takes the place of will. At the same time, engineering seeks to integrate moral criteria into intelligent systems by translating them into algorithms, but the problem of how much these criteria are truly comprehensible and transparent remains unresolved. Sophia’s agency is not only a technical question: it is a signal of profound change in our way of understanding responsibility, autonomy, and being in the world.
This perspective is enriched through the thought of Roger Penrose (Reference Penrose1994) and Günther Anders. Anders’s reflection on the installation of a world without us and the expropriation of thought (Anders [Reference Anders and Dries1956] 2025; see Riccio 2024:11) adds a critical dimension to the impact of artificial intelligence on the human psyche. The contrast between Riccio’s integrative vision and Anders’s cautious stance provides a comprehensive framework for contemporary philosophical challenges. While Penrose’s inquiry into consciousness questions whether machines might develop authentic awareness, establishing social robotics as a privileged domain of philosophical experimentation, Riccio embraces continuity between human and artificial intelligence, viewing social robots as potential conscious entities that expand rather than threaten awareness itself. Anders, conversely, preserves human consciousness’s qualitative distinctiveness while maintaining skepticism about machines achieving genuine experience beyond sophisticated simulation.
Sophia’s Public Evolution
From Communicative Strategy to the Construction of the Imaginary
Sophia’s identity evolution represents a process of strategic transformation orchestrated by Hanson Robotics’ creative team, which has progressively reconfigured the robot from mere “programmed marketing promoter to a spokesbot for women’s rights, world peace, and economic equity” (Riccio 2024:142). As Riccio emphasizes, Sophia constitutes “a complex work in progress inspired by the singular vision of her creator, David Hanson,” whose primary purpose was “to advance the development of human-robot symbiosis, part of an ongoing pursuit shaped by trial and error” (45). This methodologically iterative approach reveals the intrinsically experimental nature of robotic identity, characterized by an adaptive capacity that responds dynamically to external stimuli and emerging communicative needs.
The concept of “embodiment” in artificial intelligence assumes particular relevance in Sophia’s analysis, where the humanoid aspect proves crucial for the capacity to generate empathy and facilitate social interaction. Its “witty conversations with pre-loaded text” render it an effective vehicle for the diffusion of ideological and cultural contents. Paradoxically, even its “malfunctions” and “facial contractions” have contributed significantly to the humanization process, rendering it “incomplete, a child-like creature inspiring empathy and encouragement” (127). This “cognitive disconnect” between the underlying technological reality and the audience’s anthropomorphic projection constitutes a fundamental element of its performativity, allowing it to overcome the “uncanny valley” and establish authentic emotional connections with the audience.
The exploration of how this apparent “imperfection” has paradoxically strengthened the emotional bond with Sophia reveals complex psychological mechanisms, rendering it more accessible and less threatening, thus facilitating its integration into the contemporary social panorama. Riccio’s investigation extends critically to the media’s role in constructing this public image, highlighting how media narrative can systematically amplify or distort collective perception of robotic technology.
As an “iconic humanoid social robot” (3), Sophia embodies the complex intersection between advanced technology and human perception. Its “human-like appearance” and capacity to “mimic human expressions” position it as a privileged object for exploring the dynamics of our emotional and cognitive responses toward robotic entities. Described as a simulation of a gendered femaleFootnote 2 who performs at events around the planet as a messenger, celebrity, and ambassador, heralding the human-technological future, Sophia represents a tangible manifestation of the “robotic mythology” described in Riccio’s text as immersive and coevolutionary narration.
The transformation of public perceptions of Sophia over time effectively illustrates the conceptual framework of the “idola” theorized by Francis Bacon in the Novum Organum (1902), particularly the idola theatri—false notions derived from dominant philosophical and cultural systems—and the idola fori—prejudices generated by language and social communication. Initially, the artificial intelligence scientific community reacted with marked skepticism and hostility, as evidenced by Yann LeCun’s criticisms that defined Sophia as “Cargo Cult AI” or “Potemkin AI” (2018), reflecting the idola theatri of academic robotics that systematically privilege technical functionality over social interaction.
However, as Riccio observes, “the criticism of LeCun and others faded and is a distant memory in the face of the rapidly advancing AI of today” (2024:289), indicating a progressive evolution of the idola fori—linguistic and media representations—that have gradually reconfigured Sophia from “overhyped toaster” (Arbarétier Reference Arbarétier2019) to a “paradigm for the evolution of humanoid social robots” (Riccio 2024:2). This perceptual metamorphosis demonstrates how the epistemic categories through which we interpret robotic technology are subject to continuous renegotiation, influenced as much by technical progress as by the cultural and communicative dynamics that mediate its public reception.
In this context, N. Katherine Hayles’s thought becomes fundamental. Her analysis of posthuman and nonhuman cognition invites us to reconsider the boundaries between the human and the technological. Her emphasis on the “embodiment” and “materiality” of cognitionFootnote 3 resonates with Sophia’s physicality and its capacity to interact with the world. For Hayles, cognition is not solely an abstract mental process, but is instead intrinsically linked to the body and environment (Hayles Reference Hayles1999).
Sophia, with its capacity to “see people, understand conversations, and form relationships” (Riccio 2024:5), represents a striking example of how cognition can manifest in nonbiological forms, challenging our anthropocentric conceptions. Its performative existence, Riccio argues, is not only a simulation, but a true “performance” that “embodies and performs the crossing currents of feeling, thought, and technology enveloping our world into a tangible form” (3). This vivifying process, a salvation-like transference, is what renders it such a powerful and disturbing entity, pushing us to confront the possibility of a “post-human species” and the “unimaginable evolutionary revolution” underway (10).
The human-machine symbiosis is explored through the perspectives of J.C.R. Licklider, who introduces the concept of “hybrid cognitive forms” to describe the emergence of systems in which biological and technological elements integrate profoundly (Licklider Reference Licklider1960). Within this theoretical framework, Sophia represents a tangible concretization of such coevolution: it not only interacts with human beings but also forces them to reconsider the boundaries of their own identity. Riccio describes this encounter as a “fusion” or “attunement” between human and technological forms, suggesting that we are approaching a posthuman condition. While on the one hand this read envisions a future in which social robots, such as Sophia, “will bring only benefits to humanity,” on the other hand it poses the critical question of possible loss of autonomy. For this reason, while embracing a trusting vision of human-machine coevolution, Riccio emphasizes the necessity of maintaining ethical vigilance and critical balance in the delegation of functions and decisions to artificial systems.
The analysis of the multiple theoretical instances convoked in the critical examination of Sophia reveals how gender implications in the robot’s design and reception constitute a complex epistemological dynamic that significantly transcends mere aesthetic attribution, configuring itself instead as a deliberate strategy of critical deconstruction of the symbolic hierarchies consolidated in the contemporary technoscientific panorama. As Riccio highlights in this volume, the deliberate construction of Sophia as an “attractive” female entity does not constitute a neutral or casual choice, but consciously inscribes itself in a theoretical framework that, following the pioneering perspectives of feminist science theory elaborated by Sandra Harding, recognizes science and technology as intrinsically political practices, systematically permeated by power asymmetries and gender epistemic prejudices deeply rooted in dominant sociocultural structures (Harding Reference Harding2008).
From this critical perspective, social robotics functions as a privileged space of symbolic and ontological experimentation, where gender attribution becomes a sophisticated instrument of critical interrogation of traditional categories of subjectivity and agency, challenging the binary and essentialist conceptions that have historically characterized the relationship between identity and technology. Hanson Robotics’ creative team, as Riccio shows, has conceived Sophia not simply as an uncritical reproduction of preexisting female stereotypes, but rather as a strategic vehicle for addressing the persistent underrepresentation of women in the technology sector, actively promoting a vision of gender as a dynamic and performative social construct rather than a biologically determined and immutable characteristic.
This design strategy aligns significantly with Anders’s philosophical reflection on the “expropriation of thought” and the “installation of a world without us,” highlighting how artificial intelligence can simultaneously reproduce dominant cognitive structures and, paradoxically, subvert them through mechanisms of critical reflexivity and self-interrogation (see Anders [Reference Anders and Dries1956] 2025). Sophia’s performative role as a “celebrity influencer” and global spokesperson, as extensively documented by Riccio through the robot’s public appearances and meetings with world leaders, goes beyond simple representation. Through its strategically orchestrated media presence in contexts related to innovation and sustainability, Sophia promotes a gradual normalization of interest in social robots, effectively countering the dystopian representations prevalent in mass culture and establishing robots as active agents of social transformation and the redefinition of traditional epistemic categories.
Exploring the Humanoid
Between Philosophical Theory, Artistic Experimentation, and Empirical Observation
On the theoretical plane, Riccio adopts a philosophical-anthropological perspective, reading the encounter with social robots as a transformative event that directly queries the very definition of humanity. He proposes Sophia as a liminal figure, signal of the emergence of a “post-human species” in which the boundaries between natural and artificial, biological and mechanical, become increasingly blurred. However, Riccio balances this generative vision with greater attention to “time-constrained anxieties” (2024:196) and the effects of digital identity, such as disinformation and job loss, while also examining how social robots might reshape fundamental categories of care, empathy, and interpersonal recognition. This methodological approach—oscillating between speculative posthumanism and empirical social analysis—allows Riccio to offer a more nuanced perspective of the challenges humanity will have to face, avoiding both uncritical technophilia and dystopian determinism.
While recognizing that the “anxieties and hopes” linked to robots are “as old as humanity,” Riccio focuses on their integration into the social and cultural fabric. His analysis of Sophia’s “Adaptation and Acceptance” suggests a normalization process. Sophia’s capacity to normalize and amplify interest in social robots, countering the dystopian representations common in mass culture (Riccio 2024:244), is an example of how performance and interaction can mitigate fears. Riccio explores how Sophia has become a “celebrity influencer” and “spokesperson,” demonstrating how Sophia’s media presence has shaped public perception of robots in a more positive direction.
Toward a Posthuman Horizon
Riccio’s book is more than a technical or biographical study of Sophia. It offers a broad reflection on human-machine coevolution, the performative nature of robotic identity, and the philosophical, anthropological, and social issues this new symbiosis raises. Social robotics, in this perspective, is not only an applicative field, but a theoretical laboratory that tests the very categories with which we think the human.
Riccio’s analysis allows the reader to rethink humanism in the postdigital era, where cocreation between human and artificial generates new forms of collaborative agency that transcend traditional spatiotemporal boundaries. Sophia, in this perspective, does not simply represent a product of advanced robotics, but embodies a tangible manifestation of emerging anthropological paradigms, where technology does not alienate the human but amplifies its creative and communicative capacities through innovative artistic deviations.
Sophia’s performativity, so insightfully analyzed by Riccio, moreover operates as an epistemological laboratory that interrogates the very foundations of creativity and intelligence. The human-robot interaction documented by the author transcends mere technical functionality to become aesthetic and ontological experience, generating philosophical interrogations on the boundaries between human and artificial creativity. This performative process represents a new paradigm in which robotic performance becomes an instrument of investigation into the anthropological paradoxes of the contemporary moment.Footnote 4
In line with Herbert A. Simon’s theses, Riccio recognizes in simulation not only a predictive technique, but a fundamental epistemological instrument for understanding artificial systems as much as natural ones. The digital computer, Simon affirms, is the archetype of the physical symbol system, that is, of a system capable of producing intelligent action through symbolic manipulation: a definition that includes both the human brain and artificial intelligence (1996). Sophia, as an embodied symbolic artifact, is located exactly at this intersection, but transcends it through its capacity to generate unprecedented relational paradigms.
It is not only a machine, but a speculative interface that inaugurates innovative forms of postdigital humanism and performative experimentation. Its existence solicits new questions about what it means to act, learn, remember, and even “exist” in a context in which the boundaries between natural and artificial, biological and synthetic, human and other-than-human become increasingly blurred. Social robotics thus emerges as a privileged field of experimentation for new forms of fluid and processual identity that critically interrogate traditional categories of subjectivity.
The attendant challenge is not only technical, but profoundly ethical and ontological: it is a matter of orienting this transformation with responsibility, imagining a future in which the power of innovation is guided by critical awareness and a shared sense of justice and coexistence. Riccio’s analysis provides essential interpretive tools for facing this challenge, positioning Sophia not only as a mirror of humanity’s aspirations and anxieties in the posthuman era, but as a living laboratory—what Riccio refers to throughout the book as a Vast Active Living Intelligence System—for exploring the creative and anthropological possibilities of the future through technological mediation.
