Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x
Alexander Skulmowski
{"title":"Placebo or Assistant? Generative AI Between Externalization and Anthropomorphization","authors":"Alexander Skulmowski","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Generative AIs have been embraced by learners wishing to offload (parts of) complex tasks. However, recent research suggests that AI users are at risk of failing to correctly monitor the extent of their own contribution when being assisted by an AI. This difficulty in keeping track of the division of labor has been shown to result in placebo and ghostwriter effects. In case of the AI-based placebo effect, users overestimate their ability while or after being assisted by an AI. The ghostwriter effect occurs when AI users do not disclose their AI use despite being aware of the contribution made by an AI. These two troubling effects are discussed in the context of the conflict between cognitive externalization and anthropomorphization. While people tend to offload cognitive load into their environment, they also often perceive technology as human-like. However, despite the natural conversations that can be had with current AIs, the desire to attribute human-like qualities that would require the acknowledgment of AI contributions appears to be lacking. Implications and suggestions on how to improve AI use, for example, by employing embodied AI agents, are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Generative AIs have been embraced by learners wishing to offload (parts of) complex tasks. However, recent research suggests that AI users are at risk of failing to correctly monitor the extent of their own contribution when being assisted by an AI. This difficulty in keeping track of the division of labor has been shown to result in placebo and ghostwriter effects. In case of the AI-based placebo effect, users overestimate their ability while or after being assisted by an AI. The ghostwriter effect occurs when AI users do not disclose their AI use despite being aware of the contribution made by an AI. These two troubling effects are discussed in the context of the conflict between cognitive externalization and anthropomorphization. While people tend to offload cognitive load into their environment, they also often perceive technology as human-like. However, despite the natural conversations that can be had with current AIs, the desire to attribute human-like qualities that would require the acknowledgment of AI contributions appears to be lacking. Implications and suggestions on how to improve AI use, for example, by employing embodied AI agents, are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安慰剂还是助手?介于外化与拟人之间的生成式人工智能
希望卸下(部分)复杂任务的学习者已经开始使用生成式人工智能。然而,最近的研究表明,人工智能用户在人工智能的帮助下,有可能无法正确监控自己的贡献程度。这种难以掌握分工的情况已被证明会导致安慰剂效应和鬼才效应。在基于人工智能的安慰剂效应中,用户会在接受人工智能协助时或之后高估自己的能力。当人工智能用户在意识到人工智能所做贡献的情况下,却不披露其使用人工智能的情况时,就会产生鬼才效应。这两种令人不安的效应将在认知外化与拟人化冲突的背景下进行讨论。虽然人们倾向于将认知负荷卸载到环境中,但他们也常常认为技术与人类相似。然而,尽管可以与当前的人工智能进行自然的对话,但人们似乎并不愿意赋予人工智能类似人类的品质,这就需要承认人工智能的贡献。本文讨论了如何改进人工智能使用的影响和建议,例如,通过采用人工智能代理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
On Being Accepted: Interrogating How University Cultural Scripts Shape Personal and Political Facets of Belonging Linking Disparate Strands: A Critical Review of the Relationship Between Creativity and Education Exploring the Nature-Creativity Connection Across Different Settings: A Scoping Review Bold, Humble, Collaborative, and Virtuous: The Future of Theory Development in Educational Psychology Effects of School-led Greenspace Interventions on Mental, Physical and Social Wellbeing in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1