The AI Effect: People rate distinctively human attributes as more essential to being human after learning about artificial intelligence advances

Santoro, Erik; Monin, Benoît

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104464

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of examining abstract machine identity or broad AI advances (e.g., Granulo et al, 2019;Santoro & Monin, 2023), we studied real-life AI products, which may have immediate moral implications on real-life scenarios where they are used. This approach would also allow future research to replicate our vignette-based findings by examining actual transgressions and followup moral justifications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Gaps and Self-interest Bias: People Attribute Moral Responsibility to AI for Their Own but not Others' Transgressions

Dong¹,

Bocian²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, the ambiguity and difficulty of responsibility attribution to AI and human stakeholders (i.e., responsibility gaps) has been increasingly relevant and discussed in extreme cases (e.g., autonomous weapons). On top of related philosophical debates, the current research provides empirical evidence on the importance of bridging responsibility gaps from a psychological and motivational perspective. In three pre-registered studies (N = 1259), people judged themselves (versus others; Studies 1 and 2) and ingroup (versus outgroup; Study 3) members more leniently for identical transgressions. Moreover, such self-interest bias in hybrid transgressions was accounted for by the flexible responsibility attribution to AI (i.e., ascribing more responsibility to AI when judging the self rather than others; Studies 1 and 2). The findings suggest that people may dynamically exploit the moral “wiggle room” in hybrid moral situations and reason about AI's responsibility to serve their self-interest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Gaps and Self-interest Bias: People Attribute Moral Responsibility to AI for Their Own but not Others' Transgressions

Dong¹,

Bocian²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В существующей литературе также отмечается социальный эффект искусственного интеллекта, заключающийся в том, что люди оценивают человеческие качества как более важные для того, чтобы быть человеком, после того, как узнали о достижениях в области искусственного интеллекта (Santoro, Monin, 2023).…”

Section: материалы и методыunclassified

Spirituality in the realities of digitalization of society in the era of intelligent machines development

Popkova

2024

Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar., Ser. Èkon.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study is devoted to determining the consequences of the digitalization of society in the era of the development of intelligent machines from the perspective of spirituality. Using the regression analysis method, econometric modeling of the impact of the spread of artificial intelligence (according to Tortois) on human development (according to UNDP) in 2022 is carried out. The obtained quantitative results are complemented by qualitative research based on the methodology of neo-institutionalism using a critical analysis method to identify hidden threats of artificial intelligence for spirituality, not reflected in official statistics. As a result, it was concluded that the spread of artificial intelligence has a contradictory impact on society. A quantitative analysis of official statistics showed that the spread of artificial intelligence not only does not slow down, but even accelerates human development. At the same time, qualitative analysis pointed to hidden threats to the digitalization of society in the era of the development of intelligent machines for spirituality, requiring attention and neutralization by managing the spread of artificial intelligence. A scientific interpretation of these potential problems of the spread of artificial intelligence as “institutional traps” is given. These include: 1) the “trap” of the transition from human-inspired labor to impersonal production in the process of automation; 2) the “trap” of the spiritual and moral assessment of the release of personnel under the influence of automation; 3) the “trap” of eliminating the spiritual component from social communications during their transition to a human-machine format; 4) the “trap” of distortion of spirituality in the “distorting mirror” of artificial intelligence when mindlessly copying people’s social and moral assessments; 5) the “trap” of the transition from spiritual and moral understanding of the situation to “blind faith” in artificial intelligence with intellectual support for decision-making (rationality = soullessness). The uniqueness of the article and its theoretical significance lies in the fact that it was the first to reveal and systematize the socio-ethical aspects of the spread of artificial intelligence. The practical significance of the new scientific results obtained in the article is due to the fact that they revealed the prospect of improving the management of the spread of artificial intelligence. In order to minimize the risk of personality degradation, that is, to achieve consistent comprehensive human development in the era of the development of intelligent machines, it is recommended to pay attention to issues of spirituality. This will ensure the humanization of artificial intelligence, thereby optimizing its impact on society.

show abstract

AI‐induced dehumanization

Kim,

McGill

2024

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent technological advancements have empowered nonhuman entities, such as virtual assistants and humanoid robots, to simulate human intelligence and behavior. This paper investigates how autonomous agents influence individuals' perceptions and behaviors toward others, particularly human employees. Our research reveals that the socio‐emotional capabilities of autonomous agents lead individuals to attribute a humanlike mind to these nonhuman entities. Perceiving a high level of humanlike mind in the nonhuman, autonomous agents affects perceptions of actual people through an assimilation process. Consequently, we observe “assimilation‐induced dehumanization”: the humanness judgment of actual people is assimilated toward the lower humanness judgment of autonomous agents, leading to various forms of mistreatment. We demonstrate that assimilation‐induced dehumanization is mitigated when autonomous agents possess capabilities incompatible with humans, leading to a contrast effect (Study 2), and when autonomous agents are perceived as having a high level of cognitive capability only, resulting in a lower level of mind perception of these agents (Study 3). Our findings hold across various types of autonomous agents (embodied: Studies 1–2 and disembodied: Studies 3–5), as well as in real and hypothetical consumer choices.

show abstract

The AI Effect: People rate distinctively human attributes as more essential to being human after learning about artificial intelligence advances

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Responsibility Gaps and Self-interest Bias: People Attribute Moral Responsibility to AI for Their Own but not Others' Transgressions

Responsibility Gaps and Self-interest Bias: People Attribute Moral Responsibility to AI for Their Own but not Others' Transgressions

Spirituality in the realities of digitalization of society in the era of intelligent machines development

AI‐induced dehumanization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About