需要开展有关人类与人工智能关系规范的实证研究计划

Madeline G. Reinecke, Andreas Kappes, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Julian Savulescu, Brian D. Earp
{"title":"需要开展有关人类与人工智能关系规范的实证研究计划","authors":"Madeline G. Reinecke,&nbsp;Andreas Kappes,&nbsp;Sebastian Porsdam Mann,&nbsp;Julian Savulescu,&nbsp;Brian D. Earp","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As artificial intelligence (AI) systems begin to take on social roles traditionally filled by humans, it will be crucial to understand how this affects people’s cooperative expectations. In the case of human–human dyads, different relationships are governed by different norms: For example, how two strangers—versus two friends or colleagues—should interact when faced with a similar coordination problem often differs. How will the rise of ‘social’ artificial intelligence (and ultimately, superintelligent AI) complicate people’s expectations about the cooperative norms that should govern different types of relationships, whether human–human or human–AI? Do people expect AI to adhere to the same cooperative dynamics as humans when in a given social role? Conversely, will they begin to expect humans in certain types of relationships to act more like AI? Here, we consider how people’s cooperative expectations may pull apart between human–human and human–AI relationships, detailing an empirical proposal for mapping these distinctions across relationship types. We see the data resulting from our proposal as relevant for understanding people’s relationship–specific cooperative expectations in an age of social AI, which may also forecast potential resistance towards AI systems occupying certain social roles. Finally, these data can form the basis for ethical evaluations: What relationship–specific cooperative norms we should adopt for human–AI interactions, or reinforce through responsible AI design, depends partly on empirical facts about what norms people find intuitive for such interactions (along with the costs and benefits of maintaining these). Toward the end of the paper, we discuss how these relational norms may change over time and consider the implications of this for the proposed research program.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"71 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The need for an empirical research program regarding human–AI relational norms\",\"authors\":\"Madeline G. Reinecke,&nbsp;Andreas Kappes,&nbsp;Sebastian Porsdam Mann,&nbsp;Julian Savulescu,&nbsp;Brian D. Earp\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As artificial intelligence (AI) systems begin to take on social roles traditionally filled by humans, it will be crucial to understand how this affects people’s cooperative expectations. In the case of human–human dyads, different relationships are governed by different norms: For example, how two strangers—versus two friends or colleagues—should interact when faced with a similar coordination problem often differs. How will the rise of ‘social’ artificial intelligence (and ultimately, superintelligent AI) complicate people’s expectations about the cooperative norms that should govern different types of relationships, whether human–human or human–AI? Do people expect AI to adhere to the same cooperative dynamics as humans when in a given social role? Conversely, will they begin to expect humans in certain types of relationships to act more like AI? Here, we consider how people’s cooperative expectations may pull apart between human–human and human–AI relationships, detailing an empirical proposal for mapping these distinctions across relationship types. We see the data resulting from our proposal as relevant for understanding people’s relationship–specific cooperative expectations in an age of social AI, which may also forecast potential resistance towards AI systems occupying certain social roles. Finally, these data can form the basis for ethical evaluations: What relationship–specific cooperative norms we should adopt for human–AI interactions, or reinforce through responsible AI design, depends partly on empirical facts about what norms people find intuitive for such interactions (along with the costs and benefits of maintaining these). Toward the end of the paper, we discuss how these relational norms may change over time and consider the implications of this for the proposed research program.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI and ethics\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"71 - 80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI and ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00631-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
The need for an empirical research program regarding human–AI relational norms

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems begin to take on social roles traditionally filled by humans, it will be crucial to understand how this affects people’s cooperative expectations. In the case of human–human dyads, different relationships are governed by different norms: For example, how two strangers—versus two friends or colleagues—should interact when faced with a similar coordination problem often differs. How will the rise of ‘social’ artificial intelligence (and ultimately, superintelligent AI) complicate people’s expectations about the cooperative norms that should govern different types of relationships, whether human–human or human–AI? Do people expect AI to adhere to the same cooperative dynamics as humans when in a given social role? Conversely, will they begin to expect humans in certain types of relationships to act more like AI? Here, we consider how people’s cooperative expectations may pull apart between human–human and human–AI relationships, detailing an empirical proposal for mapping these distinctions across relationship types. We see the data resulting from our proposal as relevant for understanding people’s relationship–specific cooperative expectations in an age of social AI, which may also forecast potential resistance towards AI systems occupying certain social roles. Finally, these data can form the basis for ethical evaluations: What relationship–specific cooperative norms we should adopt for human–AI interactions, or reinforce through responsible AI design, depends partly on empirical facts about what norms people find intuitive for such interactions (along with the costs and benefits of maintaining these). Toward the end of the paper, we discuss how these relational norms may change over time and consider the implications of this for the proposed research program.

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
Exploring the mutations of society in the era of generative AI The need for an empirical research program regarding human–AI relational norms AI to renew public employment services? Explanation and trust of domain experts Waging warfare against states: the deployment of artificial intelligence in cyber espionage Technology, liberty, and guardrails
×
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