Premium
Home maintainer, guardian or companion? Three commentaries on the implications of domestic AI in the household
Author(s) -
Martens Marijn,
Vanden Abeele Mariek,
De Wolf Ralf
Publication year - 2025
Publication title -
family relations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.772
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1741-3729
pISSN - 0197-6664
DOI - 10.1111/fare.13162
Subject(s) - guardian , software maintainer , psychology , communication , computer science , political science , programming language , law
Abstract Objective This article explores the potential implications of domestic artificial intelligence (AI) systems in everyday households for chore distribution, family surveillance, and the (re)valuation of interpersonal communication. Background We differentiate between three types of domestic AI systems based on the social roles they are promised to fulfill: domestic AI as a home maintainer, a guardian, and a companion. Method We contrasted the findings from empirical studies with discourse on the development of these domestic AI systems to establish how scholarly research differ from the promises of developers when it comes to the social implications of domestic AI. Results We noticed that for each social role of domestic AI, scholarly research nuances the promises of developers. First, domestic AI as a home maintainer can lead to subtle shifts in the gender division of household chores and introduce new forms of control through digital housekeeping. Second, when domestic AI acts as a guardian, it may reshape intimate surveillance practices, blurring the line between care and control. Finally, as a companion, domestic AI might shape or be shaped by existing household dynamics. Conclusion Our analysis shows that domestic AI systems should be interpreted in a larger vision for the future for the household, where implementations of domestic AI fit the norms and values embedded in our households. Therefore, we should reflect on (a) what roles we introduce or reconfigure by introducing domestic AI, (b) what “price” we want to pay to deploy domestic AI, and (c) to what extent automation through domestic AI aligns with household values and norms. Implications We direct our focus toward researchers, urging them to look beyond deterministic views and effectively examine everyday negotiations, adoption, and the extent to which the domestic AI systems align with the norms and needs of family members. Moreover, we argue for policymakers and practice to shift from a technical perspective on domestic AI to a relational one. Regulation and services supporting families should focus on the social roles that domestic AI plays in the household.