Enabling later life: a four-pillar framework for AI, robotics, and human enhancement in super

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are increasingly proposed as responses to population aging, care shortages, social isolation, and cognitive decline. Yet technologies for older adults are often evaluated mainly by how well they compensate for loss or manage risk. Using a theory-driven conceptual synthesis, this article proposes a different orientation: AI- and robotics-enabled sociotechnical arrangements should be assessed by how they expand or constrain later-life agency. Drawing together gerontechnology, social and assistive robotics, smart-home monitoring, digital ageism, AI ethics, human enhancement, and capability-oriented accounts of aging and disability, this article develops a four-pillar evaluative framework comprising substantive opportunity, practical control, relation, and responsibility. It argues, first, that in super-aged societies, AI and robotics help constitute agency, dependency, care, and responsibility rather than merely serving pre-existing needs. Second, enhancement in later life should be understood not as youthfulness or optimization but as widening meaningful possibilities under changing bodily and social conditions. Third, the ethical quality of a technology depends on the wider arrangement in which it is designed, deployed, maintained, interpreted, and refused. The framework translates these claims into design and governance questions for researchers, care institutions, and policymakers. It shifts evaluative attention beyond narrow deficit management to examine how AI-mediated environments support people in aging with dignity, relation, and room for revision and refusal. Similar content being viewed by others Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. References Abdi J, Al-Hindawi A, Ng T, Vizcaychipi MP (2018) Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8:e018815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815 Abou Allaban A, Wang M, Padir T (2020) A systematic review of robotics research in support of in-home care for older adults. Information 11:75. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020075 Alnajjar F, Khalid S, Vogan AA, Shimoda S, Nouchi R, Kawashima R (2019) Emerging cognitive intervention technologies to meet the needs of an aging population: a systematic review. Front Aging Neurosci 11:291. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2019.00291 Aparicio A (2025) Public alignment with longevity biotechnology: an analysis of framing in surveys and opinion studies. Biogerontology 26:13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10522-024-10157-z Baltes PB, Baltes MM (1990) Psychological perspectives on successful aging: the model of selective optimization with compensation. In: Baltes PB, Baltes MM (eds) Successful aging: perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665684.003 Berridge C (2016) Breathing room in monitored space: the impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. Gerontologist 56:807–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv034 Berridge C (2017) Active subjects of passive monitoring: responses to a passive monitoring system in low-income independent living. Ageing Soc 37:537–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15001269 Bostrom N (2005) The fable of the dragon tyrant. J Med Ethics 31:273–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.009035 Capasso M (2023) Responsible social robotics and the dilemma of control. Int J Soc Robot 15:1981–1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01049-2 Chu CH, Nyrup R, Leslie K, Shi J, Bianchi A, Lyn A, McNicholl M, Khan S, Rahimi S, Grenier A (2022) Digital ageism: challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults. Gerontologist 62:947–955. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab167 Czaja SJ, Ceruso M (2022) The promise of artificial intelligence in supporting an aging population. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 16:182–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221129914 de Grey ADNJ (2005) Life extension, human rights, and the rational refinement of repugnance. J Med Ethics 31:659–663. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.011957 De Togni G, Erikainen S, Chan S, Cunningham-Burley S (2021) What makes AI intelligent and caring? Exploring affect and relationality across three sites of intelligence and care. Soc Sci Med 277:113874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113874 Dunn M (2018) Realizing and maintaining capabilities: late life as a social project. Hastings Cent Rep 48:S25–S30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.909 Formosa P (2021) Robot autonomy vs. human autonomy: social robots, artificial intelligence (AI), and the nature of autonomy. Minds Mach 31:595–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09579-2 García-Barranquero P, Llorca Albareda J, Díaz-Cobacho G (2024) Is ageing undesirable? An ethical analysis. J Med Ethics 50:413–419. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108823 Gems D, Okholm S, Lemoine M (2024) Inflated expectations: the strange craze for translational research on aging. EMBO Rep 25:3748–3752. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00226-2 Giaccardi E, Kuijer L, Neven L (2016) Design for resourceful ageing: intervening in the ethics of gerontechnology. In: Proceedings of DRS 2016, design research society 50th anniversary conference. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.258 Gladyshev VN, Anderson B, Barlit H et al (2024) Disagreement on foundational principles of biological aging. PNAS Nexus 3:pgae499. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae499 Graham SA, Lee EE, Jeste DV, Van Patten R, Twamley EW, Nebeker C, Yamada Y, Kim HC, Depp CA (2020) Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting and detecting cognitive decline in older adults: a conceptual review. Psychiatry Res 284:112732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112732 Huang Y, Zhou Q, Piper AM (2025) Designing conversational AI for aging: a systematic review of older adults’ perceptions and needs. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Article 181. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, pp 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713578 Jecker NS (2021) You’ve got a friend in me: sociable robots for older adults in an age of global pandemics. Ethics Inf Technol 23:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09546-y Kennedy BK, Berger SL, Brunet A, Campisi J, Cuervo AM, Epel ES, Franceschi C, Lithgow GJ, Morimoto RI, Pessin JE, Rando TA, Richardson A, Schadt EE, Wyss-Coray T, Sierra F (2014) Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell 159:709–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.039 Lee HR, Riek LD (2018) Reframing assistive robots to promote successful aging. ACM Trans Hum Robot Interact 7:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3203303 Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rios Rincon A (2016) Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 91:44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007 Llorca Albareda J, García-Barranquero P (2026) Clashing perspectives? Two approaches to the desirability of biological aging. Health Care Anal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-026-00576-z López-Otín C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G (2023) Hallmarks of aging: an expanding universe. Cell 186:243–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001 Mazuz K, Yamazaki R (2025) Trauma-informed care approach in developing companion robots: a preliminary observational study. Front Robot AI 12:1476063. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1476063 Meskó B, Topol EJ (2023) The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. npj Digit Med 6:120. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00873-0 Mitra S, Brucker DL (2020) Disability and aging: from successful aging to wellbeing through the capability and human development lens. Disabil Health J 13:100924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100924 Muramatsu N, Akiyama H (2011) Japan: super-aging society preparing for the future. Gerontologist 51:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr067 Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Parens E (1998) Is better always good? The enhancement project. In: Parens E (ed) Enhancing human traits: ethical and social implications. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–28 Peine A, Neven L (2019) From intervention to co-constitution: new directions in theorizing about aging and technology. Gerontologist 59:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny050 Peine A, Neven L (2021) The co-constitution of ageing and technology: a model and agenda. Ageing Soc 41:2845–2866. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000641 Peine A, Faulkner A, Jæger B, Moors E (2015) Science, technology and the grand challenge of ageing: understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change 93:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.010 Pino O, Palestra G, Trevino R, De Carolis B (2020) The humanoid robot NAO as trainer in a memory program for elderly people with mild cognitive impairment. Int J Soc Robot 12:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00533-y Rantz MJ, Skubic M, Miller SJ, Galambos C, Alexander G, Keller J, Popescu M (2013) Sensor technology to support aging in place. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14:386–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.018 Reynolds JM (2018) The extended body: on aging, disability, and well-being. Hastings Cent Rep 48:S31–S36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.910 Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford Smarr CA, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, Prakash A, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2014) Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot 6:229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0220-0 Stephens C (2017) From success to capability for healthy ageing: shifting the lens to include all older people. Crit Public Health 27:490–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2016.1192583 Stypinska J (2023) AI ageism: a critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies. AI Soc 38:665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01553-5 Sundgren S, Stolt M, Suhonen R (2020) Ethical issues related to the use of gerontechnology in older people care: a scoping review. Nurs Ethics 27:88–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733019845132 Tronto JC (2013) Caring democracy: markets, equality, and justice. New York University Press, New York Tsai PC, Akpan A, Tang KT, Lakany H (2025) Brain computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement in older people—challenges and applications: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 25:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05676-4 Valentí Soler M, Agüera-Ortiz L, Olazarán Rodríguez J, Mendoza Rebolledo C, Pérez Muñoz A, Rodríguez Pérez I, Osa Ruiz E, Barrios Sánchez A, Herrero Cano V, Carrasco Chillón L, Felipe Ruiz S, López Álvarez J, León Salas B, Cañas Plaza JM, Martín Rico F, Abella Dago G, Martínez Martín P (2015) Social robots in advanced dementia. Front Aging Neurosci 7:133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00133 Vogan AA, Alnajjar F, Gochoo M, Khalid S (2020) Robots, AI, and cognitive training in an era of mass age-related cognitive decline: a systematic review. IEEE Access 8:18284–18304. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966819 Wareham CS (2018) What is the ethics of ageing? J Med Ethics 44:128–132. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104374 Widder DG, Nafus D (2023) Dislocated accountabilities in the “AI supply chain”: modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231177620 Wright JA (2023) Robots won’t save Japan: an ethnography of eldercare automation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501768040.001.0001 Wullenkord R, Eyssel F (2020) Societal and ethical issues in HRI. Curr Robot Rep 1:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00010-9 Ziegler DA, Anguera JA, Gallen CL, Hsu WY, Wais PE, Gazzaley A (2022) Leveraging technology to personalize cognitive enhancement methods in aging. Nat Aging 2:475–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-022-00237-5 Funding This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI), Grant Numbers JP26K05287 and JP23K01732. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions S.H. conceived the article, designed the conceptual synthesis, selected and synthesized the literature, developed the four-pillar framework, drafted and revised the manuscript, prepared the tables, and approved the final version. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The author declares no competing interests. Ethical approval Not applicable. Consent to participate This review article does not report new research involving human participants, animals, or clinical intervention. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Horiuchi, S. Enabling later life: a four-pillar framework for AI, robotics, and human enhancement in super-aged societies. AI & Soc (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03381-3 Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03381-3