聊天机器人如何看待青少年的色情短信行为

Tsameret Ricon
{"title":"聊天机器人如何看待青少年的色情短信行为","authors":"Tsameret Ricon","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study compares the perceptions and attitudes of two AI chatbots – Claude and ChatGPT – towards sexting by adolescents. Sexting, defined as sharing sexually explicit messages or images, is increasingly common among teenagers and has sparked ethical debates on consent, privacy, and potential harm. The study employs qualitative content analysis to investigate how AI systems address the complex issues related to sexting.</p><p>The chatbots were queried on Dec 2023 about the legitimacy of sexting in adolescent relationships, the non-consensual sharing of sexts, and privacy risks. Their responses were analyzed for themes related to the appropriateness, potential harm, and the specificity of recommendations the chatbots offered.</p><p>Key differences emerged in their ethical stances. Claude declined to render definitive value judgments, instead emphasizing consent, evaluating risks versus rewards, and seeking to prevent harm by providing concrete advice. ChatGPT was more abstract, stating that appropriateness depends on societal norms. While Claude provided a harm-centric framing of potential emotional, reputational, and legal consequences of activities such as nonconsensual “revenge porn,” ChatGPT used more tentative language. Finally, Claude offered actionable guidance aligned with research insights, while ChatGPT reiterated the need to respect consent without clearly outlining the next steps.</p><p>Overall, Claude demonstrated greater nuance in reasoning about ethical sexting issues, while ChatGPT showed greater subjectivity tied to societal standards.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882124000288/pdfft?md5=1fd0ec5bdb989f7d776a272841f738bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2949882124000288-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How chatbots perceive sexting by adolescents\",\"authors\":\"Tsameret Ricon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study compares the perceptions and attitudes of two AI chatbots – Claude and ChatGPT – towards sexting by adolescents. Sexting, defined as sharing sexually explicit messages or images, is increasingly common among teenagers and has sparked ethical debates on consent, privacy, and potential harm. The study employs qualitative content analysis to investigate how AI systems address the complex issues related to sexting.</p><p>The chatbots were queried on Dec 2023 about the legitimacy of sexting in adolescent relationships, the non-consensual sharing of sexts, and privacy risks. Their responses were analyzed for themes related to the appropriateness, potential harm, and the specificity of recommendations the chatbots offered.</p><p>Key differences emerged in their ethical stances. Claude declined to render definitive value judgments, instead emphasizing consent, evaluating risks versus rewards, and seeking to prevent harm by providing concrete advice. ChatGPT was more abstract, stating that appropriateness depends on societal norms. While Claude provided a harm-centric framing of potential emotional, reputational, and legal consequences of activities such as nonconsensual “revenge porn,” ChatGPT used more tentative language. Finally, Claude offered actionable guidance aligned with research insights, while ChatGPT reiterated the need to respect consent without clearly outlining the next steps.</p><p>Overall, Claude demonstrated greater nuance in reasoning about ethical sexting issues, while ChatGPT showed greater subjectivity tied to societal standards.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882124000288/pdfft?md5=1fd0ec5bdb989f7d776a272841f738bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2949882124000288-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882124000288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882124000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了 Claude 和 ChatGPT 这两个人工智能聊天机器人对青少年色情短信的看法和态度。色情短讯被定义为分享露骨的性信息或图片,在青少年中越来越常见,并引发了关于同意、隐私和潜在危害的伦理辩论。这项研究采用定性内容分析的方法,调查人工智能系统如何解决与sexting相关的复杂问题。2023年12月,聊天机器人被问及青少年关系中sexting的合法性、未经同意分享sexts以及隐私风险。我们对聊天机器人的回答进行了分析,分析的主题涉及聊天机器人所提建议的适当性、潜在危害和具体性。Claude 拒绝做出明确的价值判断,而是强调同意、评估风险与回报,并寻求通过提供具体建议来预防伤害。ChatGPT 则更为抽象,它认为适当与否取决于社会规范。克劳德以伤害为中心,阐述了未经同意的 "报复性色情 "等活动可能带来的情感、名誉和法律后果,而 ChatGPT 则使用了更多试探性的语言。最后,克劳德提供了与研究见解相一致的可操作指导,而 ChatGPT 则重申了尊重同意的必要性,但没有明确概述下一步措施。总体而言,克劳德在推理色情短信息伦理问题时表现出更多的细微差别,而 ChatGPT 则表现出与社会标准相关的更大主观性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How chatbots perceive sexting by adolescents

This study compares the perceptions and attitudes of two AI chatbots – Claude and ChatGPT – towards sexting by adolescents. Sexting, defined as sharing sexually explicit messages or images, is increasingly common among teenagers and has sparked ethical debates on consent, privacy, and potential harm. The study employs qualitative content analysis to investigate how AI systems address the complex issues related to sexting.

The chatbots were queried on Dec 2023 about the legitimacy of sexting in adolescent relationships, the non-consensual sharing of sexts, and privacy risks. Their responses were analyzed for themes related to the appropriateness, potential harm, and the specificity of recommendations the chatbots offered.

Key differences emerged in their ethical stances. Claude declined to render definitive value judgments, instead emphasizing consent, evaluating risks versus rewards, and seeking to prevent harm by providing concrete advice. ChatGPT was more abstract, stating that appropriateness depends on societal norms. While Claude provided a harm-centric framing of potential emotional, reputational, and legal consequences of activities such as nonconsensual “revenge porn,” ChatGPT used more tentative language. Finally, Claude offered actionable guidance aligned with research insights, while ChatGPT reiterated the need to respect consent without clearly outlining the next steps.

Overall, Claude demonstrated greater nuance in reasoning about ethical sexting issues, while ChatGPT showed greater subjectivity tied to societal standards.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can ChatGPT read who you are? Understanding young adults’ attitudes towards using AI chatbots for psychotherapy: The role of self-stigma Aversion against machines with complex mental abilities: The role of individual differences Differences between human and artificial/augmented intelligence in medicine Integrating sound effects and background music in Robotic storytelling – A series of online studies across different story genres
×
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