Do We Collaborate With What We Design?

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-15 DOI:10.1111/tops.12682
Katie D Evans, Scott A Robbins, Joanna J Bryson
{"title":"Do We Collaborate With What We Design?","authors":"Katie D Evans, Scott A Robbins, Joanna J Bryson","doi":"10.1111/tops.12682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of terms like \"collaboration\" and \"co-workers\" to describe interactions between human beings and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems has gained significant traction in recent years. Yet, it remains an open question whether such anthropomorphic metaphors provide either a fertile or even a purely innocuous lens through which to conceptualize designed commercial products. Rather, a respect for human dignity and the principle of transparency may require us to draw a sharp distinction between real and faux peers. At the heart of the concept of collaboration lies the assumption that the collaborating parties are (or behave as if they are) of similar status: two agents capable of comparable forms of intentional action, moral agency, or moral responsibility. In application to current AI systems, this not only seems to fail ontologically but also from a socio-political perspective. AI in the workplace is primarily an extension of capital, not of labor, and the AI \"co-workers\" of most individuals will likely be owned and operated by their employer. In this paper, we critically assess both the accuracy and desirability of using the term \"collaboration\" to describe interactions between humans and AI systems. We begin by proposing an alternative ontology of human-machine interaction, one which features not two equivalently autonomous agents, but rather one machine that exists in a relationship of heteronomy to one or more human agents. In this sense, while the machine may have a significant degree of independence concerning the means by which it achieves its ends, the ends themselves are always chosen by at least one human agent, whose interests may differ from those of the individuals interacting with the machine. We finally consider the motivations and risks inherent to the continued use of the term \"collaboration,\" exploring its strained relation to the concept of transparency, and consequences for the future of work.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":"392-411"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12093928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12682","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of terms like "collaboration" and "co-workers" to describe interactions between human beings and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems has gained significant traction in recent years. Yet, it remains an open question whether such anthropomorphic metaphors provide either a fertile or even a purely innocuous lens through which to conceptualize designed commercial products. Rather, a respect for human dignity and the principle of transparency may require us to draw a sharp distinction between real and faux peers. At the heart of the concept of collaboration lies the assumption that the collaborating parties are (or behave as if they are) of similar status: two agents capable of comparable forms of intentional action, moral agency, or moral responsibility. In application to current AI systems, this not only seems to fail ontologically but also from a socio-political perspective. AI in the workplace is primarily an extension of capital, not of labor, and the AI "co-workers" of most individuals will likely be owned and operated by their employer. In this paper, we critically assess both the accuracy and desirability of using the term "collaboration" to describe interactions between humans and AI systems. We begin by proposing an alternative ontology of human-machine interaction, one which features not two equivalently autonomous agents, but rather one machine that exists in a relationship of heteronomy to one or more human agents. In this sense, while the machine may have a significant degree of independence concerning the means by which it achieves its ends, the ends themselves are always chosen by at least one human agent, whose interests may differ from those of the individuals interacting with the machine. We finally consider the motivations and risks inherent to the continued use of the term "collaboration," exploring its strained relation to the concept of transparency, and consequences for the future of work.

我们是否与我们的设计协作?
近年来,使用“协作”和“同事”等术语来描述人类与某些人工智能(AI)系统之间的互动得到了极大的关注。然而,这种拟人化的隐喻是否提供了一个丰富的,甚至是一个纯粹无害的镜头,通过它来概念化设计的商业产品,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。相反,对人的尊严和透明度原则的尊重可能要求我们对真正的和虚假的同伴作出明确的区分。协作概念的核心是这样一个假设,即合作各方(或表现得好像他们是)具有相似的地位:两个具有类似形式的有意行为、道德代理或道德责任的代理。在应用于当前的人工智能系统时,这不仅在本体论上似乎失败了,而且从社会政治的角度来看也是如此。工作场所的人工智能主要是资本的延伸,而不是劳动力的延伸,大多数人的人工智能“同事”很可能由雇主拥有和运营。在本文中,我们批判性地评估了使用术语“协作”来描述人类和人工智能系统之间的交互的准确性和可取性。我们首先提出了人机交互的另一种本体,它的特征不是两个同等自治的代理,而是一个机器存在于一个或多个人类代理的他律关系中。从这个意义上说,虽然机器在实现其目的的手段上可能有很大程度的独立性,但目的本身总是由至少一个人来选择,而这个人的利益可能与与机器交互的个人的利益不同。最后,我们考虑了继续使用“协作”一词的动机和内在风险,探索了它与透明度概念的紧张关系,以及对未来工作的影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信