设计的矛盾性:漏洞的计算方法

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105914
Peng Qian , Sophie Bridgers , Maya Taliaferro , Kiera Parece , Tomer D. Ullman
{"title":"设计的矛盾性:漏洞的计算方法","authors":"Peng Qian ,&nbsp;Sophie Bridgers ,&nbsp;Maya Taliaferro ,&nbsp;Kiera Parece ,&nbsp;Tomer D. Ullman","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Loopholes offer an opening. Rather than comply or directly refuse, people can subvert an intended request by an intentional misunderstanding. Such behaviors exploit ambiguity and under-specification in language. Using loopholes is commonplace and intuitive in everyday social interaction, both familiar and consequential. Loopholes are also of concern in the law, and increasingly in artificial intelligence. However, the computational and cognitive underpinnings of loopholes are not well understood. Here, we propose a utility-theoretic recursive social reasoning model that formalizes and accounts for loophole behavior. The model captures the decision process of a loophole-aware listener, who trades off their own utility with that of the speaker, and considers an expected social penalty for non-cooperative behavior. The social penalty is computed through the listener’s recursive reasoning about a virtual naive observer’s inference of a naive listener’s social intent. Our model captures qualitative patterns in previous data, and also generates new quantitative predictions consistent with novel studies (N <span><math><mo>=</mo></math></span> 265). We consider the broader implications of our model for other aspects of social reasoning, including plausible deniability and humor.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"252 ","pages":"Article 105914"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambivalence by design: A computational account of loopholes\",\"authors\":\"Peng Qian ,&nbsp;Sophie Bridgers ,&nbsp;Maya Taliaferro ,&nbsp;Kiera Parece ,&nbsp;Tomer D. Ullman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Loopholes offer an opening. Rather than comply or directly refuse, people can subvert an intended request by an intentional misunderstanding. Such behaviors exploit ambiguity and under-specification in language. Using loopholes is commonplace and intuitive in everyday social interaction, both familiar and consequential. Loopholes are also of concern in the law, and increasingly in artificial intelligence. However, the computational and cognitive underpinnings of loopholes are not well understood. Here, we propose a utility-theoretic recursive social reasoning model that formalizes and accounts for loophole behavior. The model captures the decision process of a loophole-aware listener, who trades off their own utility with that of the speaker, and considers an expected social penalty for non-cooperative behavior. The social penalty is computed through the listener’s recursive reasoning about a virtual naive observer’s inference of a naive listener’s social intent. Our model captures qualitative patterns in previous data, and also generates new quantitative predictions consistent with novel studies (N <span><math><mo>=</mo></math></span> 265). We consider the broader implications of our model for other aspects of social reasoning, including plausible deniability and humor.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"252 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105914\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"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/S0010027724002002\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002002","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

摘要

漏洞提供了机会。与其顺从或直接拒绝,人们可以通过故意误解来颠覆预期的请求。这种行为利用了语言的模糊性和不明确性。在日常社会交往中,利用漏洞是司空见惯的直观行为,既熟悉又会造成后果。法律中也存在漏洞,人工智能中也越来越多。然而,人们对漏洞的计算和认知基础并不十分了解。在这里,我们提出了一个效用理论递归社会推理模型,该模型可以形式化漏洞行为并对其进行解释。该模型捕捉了具有漏洞意识的听者的决策过程,听者将自己的效用与说话者的效用进行权衡,并考虑对不合作行为的预期社会惩罚。社会惩罚是通过听者对虚拟天真观察者对天真听者社会意图的推理进行递归推理计算出来的。我们的模型捕捉到了以往数据中的定性模式,同时也产生了与新研究(N = 265)一致的新定量预测。我们还考虑了我们的模型对社会推理其他方面的广泛影响,包括可信推诿和幽默。
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
Ambivalence by design: A computational account of loopholes

Loopholes offer an opening. Rather than comply or directly refuse, people can subvert an intended request by an intentional misunderstanding. Such behaviors exploit ambiguity and under-specification in language. Using loopholes is commonplace and intuitive in everyday social interaction, both familiar and consequential. Loopholes are also of concern in the law, and increasingly in artificial intelligence. However, the computational and cognitive underpinnings of loopholes are not well understood. Here, we propose a utility-theoretic recursive social reasoning model that formalizes and accounts for loophole behavior. The model captures the decision process of a loophole-aware listener, who trades off their own utility with that of the speaker, and considers an expected social penalty for non-cooperative behavior. The social penalty is computed through the listener’s recursive reasoning about a virtual naive observer’s inference of a naive listener’s social intent. Our model captures qualitative patterns in previous data, and also generates new quantitative predictions consistent with novel studies (N = 265). We consider the broader implications of our model for other aspects of social reasoning, including plausible deniability and humor.

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
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
Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers? Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: Evidence of rationality in the CIE. Decoding face identity: A reverse-correlation approach using deep learning How does color distribution learning affect goal-directed visuomotor behavior? Bias-free measure of distractor avoidance in visual search
×
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