研究发现，人们更宽容复制AI内容的行为，因认为AI不会受害且人类作者拥有更多所有权。
Can AI be a moral victim? The role of moral patiency and ownership perceptions in ethical judgments of using AI-generated content
- 通过改变原作者描述（人、AI、拟人化AI），测试道德判断差异。
- 复制AI内容被判定为不那么不道德、剽窃和引发愧疚感。
- 拟人化线索间接降低对人类作者的版权归属感，影响道德评价。
生成式AI的广泛应用引发了关于创作权与剽窃的伦理担忧。本研究探讨了人们对使用AI生成内容行为的道德判断，聚焦于道德感受性与所有权认知的影响。实验中，参与者评估了两份内容相似的手稿，其原始来源分别被描述为人类、AI系统或带有拟人化名称的AI代理。结果显示，复制AI生成内容的行为被认为较不道德、较少构成剽窃、也较少引发愧疚感，相较于复制人类创作的内容。中介分析表明，这种宽容源于对AI遭受伤害能力（道德感受性）感知较低，以及对重用该内容的人类作者赋予更高所有权。拟人化线索通过降低对人类作者的归属感，间接影响道德判断。研究揭示了人们在使用AI内容时的道德脱敏机制，并凸显了对人类与AI创作内容应用不同伦理标准的现象。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The growing use of generative AI raises ethical concerns about authorship and plagiarism. This study examines how people judge the reuse of AI-generated content, focusing on moral patiency and ownership perceptions. In an experiment, participants evaluated two substantively similar manuscripts in which the original source was described as authored by a human, an AI system, or an AI agent with a human-like name. Results showed that copying AI-generated work was judged less unethical, less plagiaristic, and less guilt-inducing than copying human-authored work. Mediation analyses revealed that this leniency stemmed from lower perceptions of AI's capacity to suffer harm (moral patiency) and greater ownership attributed to the human writer reusing AI-generated content. Anthropomorphic cues shaped moral evaluations indirectly by reducing perceived ownership. These findings shed light on how people morally disengage when using AI-generated work and highlight differences in how ethical judgments are applied to human versus AI-created content.
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。