Human beings and robots: Are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?

Stefano Guidi, E. Marchigiani, S. Roncato, O. Parlangeli
{"title":"Human beings and robots: Are there any differences in the attribution of punishments for the same crimes?","authors":"Stefano Guidi, E. Marchigiani, S. Roncato, O. Parlangeli","doi":"10.1145/3452853.3452864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As collaborative robots and artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being deployed in ever-increasing contexts, we are more and more called upon to make judgements on their moral behaviour. Understanding the factors, affecting our ethical judgements involving these types of agents, would thus seem of the uttermost importance to allow for safer and well-regulated interactions between humans and machines. So far, however, this topic has been rarely investigated. We compared the perception of the seriousness of an action committed by either a person or a robot, causing harm to either some persons or some robots, and the attribution of the appropriated punishment for that action. The results showed a significant effect of the type of victim: the action was considered more a serious offence, and deemed worthy of more severe punishment, if the victims were humans than if they were robots. A significant agent-by-victim interaction was also found in the punishment judgements: for human victims, a human agent was punished more severely than a robot, while for robot victims, a robot agent was attributed a more severe punishment than a human one. The results are discussed in the light of the theories linking moral judgements to mind perception.","PeriodicalId":334884,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3452853.3452864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT As collaborative robots and artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being deployed in ever-increasing contexts, we are more and more called upon to make judgements on their moral behaviour. Understanding the factors, affecting our ethical judgements involving these types of agents, would thus seem of the uttermost importance to allow for safer and well-regulated interactions between humans and machines. So far, however, this topic has been rarely investigated. We compared the perception of the seriousness of an action committed by either a person or a robot, causing harm to either some persons or some robots, and the attribution of the appropriated punishment for that action. The results showed a significant effect of the type of victim: the action was considered more a serious offence, and deemed worthy of more severe punishment, if the victims were humans than if they were robots. A significant agent-by-victim interaction was also found in the punishment judgements: for human victims, a human agent was punished more severely than a robot, while for robot victims, a robot agent was attributed a more severe punishment than a human one. The results are discussed in the light of the theories linking moral judgements to mind perception.
人类和机器人:对于同样的罪行,惩罚的归属有什么不同吗?
随着协作机器人和人工智能(AI)系统在越来越多的环境中被部署,我们越来越多地要求对它们的道德行为做出判断。因此,理解这些因素,影响我们对涉及这些类型的代理的道德判断,似乎对于允许人类与机器之间更安全、更规范的互动至关重要。然而,到目前为止,这个话题很少被研究。我们比较了人或机器人对某些人或机器人造成伤害的行为的严重性,以及对该行为的适当惩罚的归属。结果显示了受害者类型的显著影响:如果受害者是人类,那么这种行为被认为是更严重的罪行,应该受到更严厉的惩罚。在惩罚判断中也发现了显著的代理-受害者交互作用:对于人类受害者,人类代理受到的惩罚比机器人更严厉,而对于机器人受害者,机器人代理受到的惩罚比人类更严厉。根据道德判断与心理知觉的联系理论,对研究结果进行了讨论。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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