Psychological and Brain Responses to Artificial Intelligence's Violation of Community Ethics.

IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Yue He, Ruolei Gu, Guangzhi Deng, Yongling Lin, Tian Gan, Fang Cui, Chao Liu, Yue-Jia Luo
{"title":"Psychological and Brain Responses to Artificial Intelligence's Violation of Community Ethics.","authors":"Yue He, Ruolei Gu, Guangzhi Deng, Yongling Lin, Tian Gan, Fang Cui, Chao Liu, Yue-Jia Luo","doi":"10.1089/cyber.2023.0524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human moral reactions to artificial intelligence (AI) agents' behavior constitute an important aspect of modern-day human-AI relationships. Although previous studies have mainly focused on autonomy ethics, this study investigates how individuals judge AI agents' violations of community ethics (including betrayals and subversions) compared with human violations. Participants' behavioral responses, event-related potentials (ERPs), and individual differences were assessed. Behavioral findings reveal that participants rated AI agents' community-violating actions less morally negative than human transgressions, possibly because AI agents are commonly perceived as having less agency than human adults. The ERP N1 component showed the same pattern with moral rating scores, indicating the modulation effect of human-AI differences on initial moral intuitions. Moreover, the level of social withdrawal correlated with a smaller N1 in the human condition but not in the AI condition. The N2 and P2 components were sensitive to the difference between the loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion domains but not human/AI differences. Individual levels of moral sense and autistic traits also influenced behavioral data, especially on the loyalty/betrayal domain. In our opinion, these findings offer insights for predicting moral responses to AI agents and guiding ethical AI development aligned with human moral values.</p>","PeriodicalId":10872,"journal":{"name":"Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking","volume":" ","pages":"562-570"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human moral reactions to artificial intelligence (AI) agents' behavior constitute an important aspect of modern-day human-AI relationships. Although previous studies have mainly focused on autonomy ethics, this study investigates how individuals judge AI agents' violations of community ethics (including betrayals and subversions) compared with human violations. Participants' behavioral responses, event-related potentials (ERPs), and individual differences were assessed. Behavioral findings reveal that participants rated AI agents' community-violating actions less morally negative than human transgressions, possibly because AI agents are commonly perceived as having less agency than human adults. The ERP N1 component showed the same pattern with moral rating scores, indicating the modulation effect of human-AI differences on initial moral intuitions. Moreover, the level of social withdrawal correlated with a smaller N1 in the human condition but not in the AI condition. The N2 and P2 components were sensitive to the difference between the loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion domains but not human/AI differences. Individual levels of moral sense and autistic traits also influenced behavioral data, especially on the loyalty/betrayal domain. In our opinion, these findings offer insights for predicting moral responses to AI agents and guiding ethical AI development aligned with human moral values.

人工智能违反社区伦理的心理和大脑反应。
人类对人工智能(AI)代理行为的道德反应是现代人与人工智能关系的一个重要方面。虽然以往的研究主要集中在自主道德方面,但本研究将人工智能代理违反社区道德的行为(包括背叛和颠覆)与违反人类道德的行为进行比较,调查个体如何判断人工智能代理的行为。研究评估了参与者的行为反应、事件相关电位(ERPs)和个体差异。行为研究结果表明,与人类的违法行为相比,参与者对人工智能代理违反社区伦理行为的道德负面评价较低,这可能是因为人工智能代理通常被认为比人类代理具有更低的能动性。ERP的N1分量与道德评价得分呈现出相同的模式,表明人类与人工智能的差异对最初的道德直觉产生了调节作用。此外,在人类条件下,社会退缩程度与较小的 N1 相关,而在人工智能条件下则不然。N2和P2成分对忠诚/背叛和权威/颠覆领域的差异敏感,但对人类/人工智能差异不敏感。个人的道德感水平和自闭症特征也会影响行为数据,尤其是在忠诚/背叛领域。我们认为,这些发现为预测人工智能代理的道德反应以及指导符合人类道德价值观的人工智能开发提供了启示。
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
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is a leading peer-reviewed journal that is recognized for its authoritative research on the social, behavioral, and psychological impacts of contemporary social networking practices. The journal covers a wide range of platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, internet gaming, and e-commerce, and examines how these digital environments shape human interaction and societal norms. For over two decades, this journal has been a pioneering voice in the exploration of social networking and virtual reality, establishing itself as an indispensable resource for professionals and academics in the field. It is particularly celebrated for its swift dissemination of findings through rapid communication articles, alongside comprehensive, in-depth studies that delve into the multifaceted effects of interactive technologies on both individual behavior and broader societal trends. The journal's scope encompasses the full spectrum of impacts—highlighting not only the potential benefits but also the challenges that arise as a result of these technologies. By providing a platform for rigorous research and critical discussions, it fosters a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between technology and human behavior.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信