人工智能、信任和代理感知

P. Puranam, Bart S. Vanneste
{"title":"人工智能、信任和代理感知","authors":"P. Puranam, Bart S. Vanneste","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3897704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Extant theories of trust assume the trustee has agency (i.e. intentionality and free will). We propose that a crucial qualitative distinction between placing trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. trust in a human lies in the degree to which attributions of agency are made to the trustee by the trustor (human). We specify two mechanisms through which the extent of agency attributions can affect human trust in AI. First, the importance of the benevolence of the trustee—the AI—increases if the AI is seen as more agentic, but so does the anticipated psychological cost if it violates the trust (because of betrayal aversion, see Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). Second, attributions of benevolence and competence become less relevant for placing confidence in a non-agentic seeming AI system, and instead benevolence and competence attributions to the designer of the system become important. Both mechanisms imply that making an AI appear more agentic may increase or decrease the trust that humans place in it. While designers of AI technology often strive to endow their creations with features that convey its benevolent nature (e.g. through anthropomorphizing or transparency), this may also change agency perceptions in a manner that results in making it less trustworthy in human eyes.","PeriodicalId":152939,"journal":{"name":"Machine Learning eJournal","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence, Trust, and Perceptions of Agency\",\"authors\":\"P. Puranam, Bart S. Vanneste\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3897704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Extant theories of trust assume the trustee has agency (i.e. intentionality and free will). We propose that a crucial qualitative distinction between placing trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. trust in a human lies in the degree to which attributions of agency are made to the trustee by the trustor (human). We specify two mechanisms through which the extent of agency attributions can affect human trust in AI. First, the importance of the benevolence of the trustee—the AI—increases if the AI is seen as more agentic, but so does the anticipated psychological cost if it violates the trust (because of betrayal aversion, see Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). Second, attributions of benevolence and competence become less relevant for placing confidence in a non-agentic seeming AI system, and instead benevolence and competence attributions to the designer of the system become important. Both mechanisms imply that making an AI appear more agentic may increase or decrease the trust that humans place in it. While designers of AI technology often strive to endow their creations with features that convey its benevolent nature (e.g. through anthropomorphizing or transparency), this may also change agency perceptions in a manner that results in making it less trustworthy in human eyes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":152939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Machine Learning eJournal\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Machine Learning eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3897704\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Machine Learning eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3897704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

现存的信托理论假设受托人具有代理权(即意向性和自由意志)。我们认为,对人工智能(AI)的信任与对人类的信任之间的一个关键的定性区别在于委托人(人类)对受托人的代理归因程度。我们指定了两种机制,通过这两种机制,代理归因的程度可以影响人类对人工智能的信任。首先,如果人工智能被视为更具代理性,那么受托人(即人工智能)的善意的重要性就会增加,但如果它违背了信任,预期的心理成本也会增加(因为背叛厌恶,参见Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004)。其次,仁慈和能力的归属与对非代理AI系统的信任变得不那么相关,相反,对系统设计师的仁慈和能力的归属变得重要起来。这两种机制都意味着,让人工智能看起来更有代理能力,可能会增加或减少人类对它的信任。虽然人工智能技术的设计师经常努力赋予他们的创作以传达其仁慈本质的特征(例如,通过拟人化或透明度),但这也可能以某种方式改变代理的看法,从而导致其在人类眼中不那么值得信赖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial Intelligence, Trust, and Perceptions of Agency
Extant theories of trust assume the trustee has agency (i.e. intentionality and free will). We propose that a crucial qualitative distinction between placing trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. trust in a human lies in the degree to which attributions of agency are made to the trustee by the trustor (human). We specify two mechanisms through which the extent of agency attributions can affect human trust in AI. First, the importance of the benevolence of the trustee—the AI—increases if the AI is seen as more agentic, but so does the anticipated psychological cost if it violates the trust (because of betrayal aversion, see Bohnet & Zeckhauser, 2004). Second, attributions of benevolence and competence become less relevant for placing confidence in a non-agentic seeming AI system, and instead benevolence and competence attributions to the designer of the system become important. Both mechanisms imply that making an AI appear more agentic may increase or decrease the trust that humans place in it. While designers of AI technology often strive to endow their creations with features that convey its benevolent nature (e.g. through anthropomorphizing or transparency), this may also change agency perceptions in a manner that results in making it less trustworthy in human eyes.
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
×
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