The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105931
Mads N. Arnestad , Samuel Meyers , Kurt Gray , Yochanan E. Bigman
{"title":"The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes","authors":"Mads N. Arnestad ,&nbsp;Samuel Meyers ,&nbsp;Kurt Gray ,&nbsp;Yochanan E. Bigman","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People are offloading many tasks to artificial intelligence (AI)—including driving, investing decisions, and medical choices—but it is human nature to want to maintain ultimate control. So even when using autonomous machines, people want a “manual mode”, an option that shifts control back to themselves. Unfortunately, the mere existence of manual mode leads to more human blame when AI makes mistakes. When observers know that a human agent theoretically had the option to take control, the humans are assigned more responsibility, even when agents lack the time or ability to actually exert control, as with self-driving car crashes. Four experiments reveal that though people prefer having a manual mode, even if the AI mode is more efficient and adding the manual mode is more expensive (Study 1), the existence of a manual mode increases human blame (Studies 2a-3c). We examine two mediators for this effect: increased perceptions of causation and counterfactual cognition (Study 4). The results suggest that the human thirst for illusory control comes with real costs. Implications of AI decision-making are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"252 ","pages":"Article 105931"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002178","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People are offloading many tasks to artificial intelligence (AI)—including driving, investing decisions, and medical choices—but it is human nature to want to maintain ultimate control. So even when using autonomous machines, people want a “manual mode”, an option that shifts control back to themselves. Unfortunately, the mere existence of manual mode leads to more human blame when AI makes mistakes. When observers know that a human agent theoretically had the option to take control, the humans are assigned more responsibility, even when agents lack the time or ability to actually exert control, as with self-driving car crashes. Four experiments reveal that though people prefer having a manual mode, even if the AI mode is more efficient and adding the manual mode is more expensive (Study 1), the existence of a manual mode increases human blame (Studies 2a-3c). We examine two mediators for this effect: increased perceptions of causation and counterfactual cognition (Study 4). The results suggest that the human thirst for illusory control comes with real costs. Implications of AI decision-making 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
手动模式的存在增加了人类对人工智能错误的指责
人们正在将许多任务交给人工智能(AI),包括驾驶、投资决策和医疗选择,但人类的天性是希望保持最终的控制权。因此,即使在使用自动机器时,人们也希望有一个 "手动模式",将控制权交还给自己。不幸的是,手动模式的存在本身就会在人工智能犯错时导致更多的人类指责。当观察者知道人类代理理论上可以选择控制时,人类就会被赋予更多的责任,即使代理没有时间或能力去实际控制,就像自动驾驶汽车撞车那样。四项实验表明,尽管人们更喜欢手动模式,但即使人工智能模式更有效,而增加手动模式的成本更高(研究 1),手动模式的存在也会增加人类的责任(研究 2a-3c)。我们研究了这一效应的两个中介因素:因果关系感知和反事实认知的增加(研究 4)。研究结果表明,人类对虚幻控制的渴求需要付出实际的代价。本文讨论了人工智能决策的影响。
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
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
The role of exceptions in children's and adults' judgments about generic statements. Partisan language in a polarized world: In-group language provides reputational benefits to speakers while polarizing audiences. What's left of the leftward bias in scene viewing? Lateral asymmetries in information processing during early search guidance. Language enables the acquisition of distinct sensorimotor memories for speech. Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers?
×
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