研究AI或人类建议如何影响人们对自私行为的惩罚
Does AI and Human Advice Mitigate Punishment for Selfish Behavior? An Experiment on AI ethics From a Psychological Perspective
- 设计心理实验，测试不同建议来源和内容对惩罚的影响
- 自私行为受利他建议引导时惩罚更重，受自私建议引导时惩罚更轻
- 人们认为听从AI建议的自私者责任更大，但实际惩罚无差别
随着人们越来越依赖AI决策建议，当这些建议助长自私行为时，遵循此类建议的人会受到怎样的评价与惩罚？本研究基于社会心理学理论，结合机器行为与行为经济学方法，在一项预注册、有经济激励的实验中，让评估者对三类决策者进行惩罚：（i）接收AI、人类或无建议；（ii）建议内容为促进利他或自私行为；（iii）决策者表现自私或在对照条件下表现利他。结果表明：（i）利他行为几乎不受惩罚，而自私行为则遭严重惩罚；聚焦自私行为，（ii）相比无建议，接受利他建议后表现出自私行为的个体受到更严厉惩罚，而接受自私建议后表现出自私行为的个体则惩罚较轻；（iii）尽管认为听从AI建议的自私者责任更大，但其实际受到的惩罚与听从人类建议者无显著差异。总体而言，行为本身及建议内容决定惩罚程度，而建议来源不影响惩罚强度。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
People increasingly rely on AI-advice when making decisions. At times, such advice can promote selfish behavior. When individuals abide by selfishness-promoting AI advice, how are they perceived and punished? To study this question, we build on theories from social psychology and combine machine-behavior and behavioral economic approaches. In a pre-registered, financially-incentivized experiment, evaluators could punish real decision-makers who (i) received AI, human, or no advice. The advice (ii) encouraged selfish or prosocial behavior, and decision-makers (iii) behaved selfishly or, in a control condition, behaved prosocially. Evaluators further assigned responsibility to decision-makers and their advisors. Results revealed that (i) prosocial behavior was punished very little, whereas selfish behavior was punished much more. Focusing on selfish behavior, (ii) compared to receiving no advice, selfish behavior was penalized more harshly after prosocial advice and more leniently after selfish advice. Lastly, (iii) whereas selfish decision-makers were seen as more responsible when they followed AI compared to human advice, punishment between the two advice sources did not vary. Overall, behavior and advice content shape punishment, whereas the advice source does not.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。