Are You Sure This is What You Really Want? Conversational Recommender Systems for Enhancing Human Autonomy.

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Francisco Lara, Juan Ignacio Del Valle
{"title":"Are You Sure This is What You Really Want? Conversational Recommender Systems for Enhancing Human Autonomy.","authors":"Francisco Lara, Juan Ignacio Del Valle","doi":"10.1007/s11948-026-00619-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recommender systems are widely used to help users navigate information overload in digital environments. While they are often portrayed as tools that enhance autonomy by optimizing choice and personalizing content, this article argues that many current recommender systems designs in fact undermine user autonomy. Drawing on a conception of autonomy in which the formation and configuration of preferences, particularly higher-level desires in the Frankfurtian sense, play a prominent role, we examine how dominant recommendation techniques shape users' desires and, to a greater extent, their identities. We first analyze what we call conjectural recommenders, systems that infer preferences from behavioral data such as clicks or viewing histories. These systems conflate observed choices with genuine preferences, reinforcing first-order desires, narrowing the diversity of recommendations, and trapping users in homogeneous digital environments that impede identity development and degrade deliberative capacities. We then assess interrogative recommenders, which incorporate explicit user feedback as a form of positive friction in the user interface. Although these recommenders prompt users to articulate evaluations, we argue that they remain insufficient for capturing second-order desires and raise new design challenges concerning paternalism and usability. In response, we propose the Socratic conversational recommender system, a model that combines conversational recommendation with a second layer of Socratic questioning aimed at eliciting users' metapreferences. Rather than prescribing substantive values, the system guides reflection through formal criteria such as coherence, empirical awareness, and cognitive pluralism. The objective is not for the system to discover users' true preferences but to foster their reflective engagement with what they want to want. We conclude that embedding deliberative dialogue within recommender design offers a promising pathway for aligning algorithmic recommendation with the preservation and development of human autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"32 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13658317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-026-00619-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recommender systems are widely used to help users navigate information overload in digital environments. While they are often portrayed as tools that enhance autonomy by optimizing choice and personalizing content, this article argues that many current recommender systems designs in fact undermine user autonomy. Drawing on a conception of autonomy in which the formation and configuration of preferences, particularly higher-level desires in the Frankfurtian sense, play a prominent role, we examine how dominant recommendation techniques shape users' desires and, to a greater extent, their identities. We first analyze what we call conjectural recommenders, systems that infer preferences from behavioral data such as clicks or viewing histories. These systems conflate observed choices with genuine preferences, reinforcing first-order desires, narrowing the diversity of recommendations, and trapping users in homogeneous digital environments that impede identity development and degrade deliberative capacities. We then assess interrogative recommenders, which incorporate explicit user feedback as a form of positive friction in the user interface. Although these recommenders prompt users to articulate evaluations, we argue that they remain insufficient for capturing second-order desires and raise new design challenges concerning paternalism and usability. In response, we propose the Socratic conversational recommender system, a model that combines conversational recommendation with a second layer of Socratic questioning aimed at eliciting users' metapreferences. Rather than prescribing substantive values, the system guides reflection through formal criteria such as coherence, empirical awareness, and cognitive pluralism. The objective is not for the system to discover users' true preferences but to foster their reflective engagement with what they want to want. We conclude that embedding deliberative dialogue within recommender design offers a promising pathway for aligning algorithmic recommendation with the preservation and development of human autonomy.

你确定这是你真正想要的吗?增强人类自主性的会话推荐系统。
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
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
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
小红书