Suzanne Tolmeijer
Abraham Bernstein
ABSTRACT
While artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied for decision-making processes, ethical decisions pose challenges for AI applications. Given that humans cannot always agree on the right thing to do, how would ethical decision-making by AI systems be perceived and how would responsibility be ascribed in human-AI collaboration? In this study, we investigate how the expert type (human vs. AI) and level of expert autonomy (adviser vs. decider) influence trust, perceived responsibility, and reliance. We find that participants consider humans to be more morally trustworthy but less capable than their AI equivalent. This shows in participants’ reliance on AI: AI recommendations and decisions are accepted more often than the human expert’s. However, AI team experts are perceived to be less responsible than humans, while programmers and sellers of AI systems are deemed partially responsible instead.
Supplemental Material
- Klauw Abbink and Benedikt Herrmann. 2011. The Moral Costs of Nastiness. Economic Inquiry 49, 2 (2011), 631–633.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nadia Adnan, Shahrina Md Nordin, Mohamad Ariff bin Bahruddin, and Murad Ali. 2018. How trust can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology? In-vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transportation research part A: policy and practice 118 (2018), 819–836.Google Scholar
- Carlos Alós-Ferrer and Federica Farolfi. 2019. Trust Games and Beyond. Frontiers in Neuroscience 13 (2019), 887.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Anderson, Susan Leigh Anderson, and Chris Armen. 2004. Towards machine ethics. In AAAI-04 workshop on agent publishers: theory and practice, San Jose, CA. AAAI Press, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 2–7.Google Scholar
- Theo Araujo, Natali Helberger, Sanne Kruikemeier, and Claes H De Vreese. 2020. In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY 35, 3 (2020), 611–623.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59–64.Google Scholar
- Annette Baier. 1986. Trust and antitrust. ethics 96, 2 (1986), 231–260.Google Scholar
- Judith Baker. 1987. Trust and rationality. Pacific philosophical quarterly 68, 1 (1987), 1–13.Google Scholar
- Gagan Bansal, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Walter S Lasecki, Daniel S Weld, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-AI team performance. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 7. The AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California USA, 2–11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- BJÖRN BARTLING and URS FISCHBACHER. 2012. Shifting the Blame: On Delegation and Responsibility. The Review of Economic Studies 79, 1 (2012), 67–87.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ghassan F Bati and Vivek K Singh. 2018. “Trust Us” Mobile Phone Use Patterns Can Predict Individual Trust Propensity. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Christopher W Bauman, A Peter McGraw, Daniel M Bartels, and Caleb Warren. 2014. Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8, 9 (2014), 536–554.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeremy Bentham. 1996. The collected works of Jeremy Bentham: An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Benedikt Berger, Martin Adam, Alexander Rühr, and Alexander Benlian. 2021. Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn. Business & Information Systems Engineering 63, 1 (2021), 55–68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iris Bohnet, Fiona Greig, Benedikt Herrmann, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2008. Betrayal Aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. American Economic Review 98, 1 (March 2008), 294–310.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iris Bohnet and Richard Zeckhauser. 2004. Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55, 4(2004), 467–484.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2019. The trolley, the bull bar, and why engineers should care about the ethics of autonomous cars [point of view]. Proc. IEEE 107, 3 (2019), 502–504.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jason W Burton, Mari-Klara Stein, and Tina Blegind Jensen. 2020. A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 33, 2 (2020), 220–239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sidney Callahan. 1988. The role of emotion in ethical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report 18, 3 (1988), 9–14.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noah Castelo, Maarten W Bos, and Donald R Lehmann. 2019. Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 56, 5 (2019), 809–825.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danton S Char, Nigam H Shah, and David Magnus. 2018. Implementing machine learning in health care—addressing ethical challenges. The New England journal of medicine 378, 11 (2018), 981.Google Scholar
- Jin Chen, Cheng Chen, Joseph B. Walther, and S. Shyam Sundar. 2021. Do You Feel Special When an AI Doctor Remembers You? Individuation Effects of AI vs. Human Doctors on User Experience. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 299, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451735Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chun-Wei Chiang and Ming Yin. 2021. You’d Better Stop! Understanding Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models under Covariate Shift. In 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 120–129.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Markus Christen, Darcia Narvaez, Julaine D Zenk, Michael Villano, Charles R Crowell, and Daniel R Moore. 2021. Trolley dilemma in the sky: Context matters when civilians and cadets make remotely piloted aircraft decisions. PLoS one 16, 3 (2021), e0247273.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dan Conway, Fang Chen, Kun Yu, Jianlong Zhou, and Richard Morris. 2016. Misplaced Trust: A Bias in Human-Machine Trust Attribution–In Contradiction to Learning Theory. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3035–3041.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mary L Cummings. 2006. Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach. Science and engineering ethics 12, 4 (2006), 701–715.Google Scholar
- Berkeley J Dietvorst, Joseph P Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2015. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, 1 (2015), 114.Google Scholar
- Virginia Dignum. 2018. Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue., 3 pages.Google Scholar
- Steven E Dilsizian and Eliot L Siegel. 2014. Artificial intelligence in medicine and cardiac imaging: harnessing big data and advanced computing to provide personalized medical diagnosis and treatment. Current cardiology reports 16, 1 (2014), 441.Google Scholar
- Raymond Duch, Wojtek Przepiorka, and Randolph Stevenson. 2015. Responsibility attribution for collective decision makers. American Journal of Political Science 59, 2 (2015), 372–389.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gerd Gigerenzer Eduard Brandstaetter and Ralph Hertwig. 2006. The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices Without Trade-Offs. Psychological Review 113, 2 (2006), 409–462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ziv Epstein, Sydney Levine, David G Rand, and Iyad Rahwan. 2020. Who gets credit for AI-generated art?Iscience 23, 9 (2020), 101515.Google Scholar
- Mike Farjam. 2019. On whom would I want to depend; humans or computers?Journal of Economic Psychology 72 (2019), 219–228.Google Scholar
- Ethan Fast and Eric Horvitz. 2017. Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 31. The AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California USA, 963–969.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, Wenchao Jiang, Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, Feng Wu, and Tom Rodden. 2021. In-the-loop or on-the-loop? Interactional arrangements to support team coordination with a planning agent. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 33, 8(2021), e4082. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4082 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpe.4082e4082 cpe.4082.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philippa Foot. 2002. Moral Dilemmas: and other topics in moral philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Donelson R Forsyth, Linda E Zyzniewski, and Cheryl A Giammanco. 2002. Responsibility diffusion in cooperative collectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 1 (2002), 54–65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas Franke, Christiane Attig, and Daniel Wessel. 2019. A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 35, 6(2019), 456–467.Google Scholar
- Nathan G. Freier, Elia J. Nelson, Amanda Rotondo, and Wai Kay Kong. 2009. The Moral Accountability of a Personified Agent: Young Adults’ Conceptions. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4609–4614. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520708Google ScholarDigital Library
- Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. Technical Report 2-12. University of Washington.Google Scholar
- Anna-Katharina Frison, Philipp Wintersberger, Andreas Riener, Clemens Schartmüller, Linda Ng Boyle, Erika Miller, and Klemens Weigl. 2019. In UX We Trust: Investigation of Aesthetics and Usability of Driver-Vehicle Interfaces and Their Impact on the Perception of Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Felix Gille, Anna Jobin, and Marcello Ienca. 2020. What we talk about when we talk about trust: theory of trust for AI in healthcare. Intelligence-Based Medicine 1 (2020), 100001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Gogoll and Julian F Müller. 2017. Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and engineering ethics 23, 3 (2017), 681–700.Google Scholar
- Jan Gogoll and Matthias Uhl. 2018. Rage against the machine: Automation in the moral domain. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 74 (2018), 97–103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katja Grace, John Salvatier, Allan Dafoe, Baobao Zhang, and Owain Evans. 2018. When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 62 (2018), 729–754.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter A Graham. 2010. In defense of objectivism about moral obligation. Ethics 121, 1 (2010), 88–115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nina Grgić-Hlača, Christoph Engel, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2019. Human Decision Making with Machine Assistance: An Experiment on Bailing and Jailing. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 178 (Nov. 2019), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359280Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holger A Haenssle, Christine Fink, Roland Schneiderbauer, Ferdinand Toberer, Timo Buhl, Andreas Blum, A Kalloo, A Ben Hadj Hassen, Luc Thomas, A Enk, 2018. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists. Annals of oncology 29, 8 (2018), 1836–1842.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John R. Hamman, George Loewenstein, and Roberto A. Weber. 2010. Self-Interest through Delegation: An Additional Rationale for the Principal-Agent Relationship. The American Economic Review 100, 4 (2010), 1826–1846.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Russell Hardin. 1993. The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics & society 21, 4 (1993), 505–529.Google Scholar
- Gilbert Harman. 1975. Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review 84, 1 (1975), 3–22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katherine Hawley. 2014. Trust, distrust and commitment. Noûs 48, 1 (2014), 1–20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Hedlund and Erik Persson. 2021. Expert responsibility in AI development. Proceedings of the International Conference of Public Policy (ICPP5) 5 (2021), 1–24.Google Scholar
- Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors 57, 3 (2015), 407–434.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charles A. Holt and Susan K. Laury. 2002. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review 92, 5 (December 2002), 1644–1655.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Holton. 1994. Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Australasian journal of philosophy 72, 1 (1994), 63–76.Google Scholar
- Joo-Wha Hong and Dmitri Williams. 2019. Racism, responsibility and autonomy in HCI: Testing perceptions of an AI agent. Computers in Human Behavior 100 (2019), 79–84.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre. 2015. An introduction to autonomy in weapon systems. Technical Report. Center for A New American Security.Google Scholar
- Rasheed Hussain and Sherali Zeadally. 2018. Autonomous cars: Research results, issues, and future challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 21, 2 (2018), 1275–1313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alon Jacovi, Ana Marasović, Tim Miller, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Formalizing trust in artificial intelligence: Prerequisites, causes and goals of human trust in AI. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 624–635.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi. 2018. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons 61, 4 (2018), 577–586.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 9 (2019), 389–399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Deborah G Johnson and Mario Verdicchio. 2019. AI, agency and responsibility: the VW fraud case and beyond. Ai & Society 34, 3 (2019), 639–647.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael S Josephson and Wes Hanson. 2002. Making ethical decisions. Josephson Institute of ethics Marina del Rey, CA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- Ekaterina Jussupow, Izak Benbasat, and Armin Heinzl. 2020. Why are we Averse towards Algorithms? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Algorithmic Aversion. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). ECIS, Marrakech, Morocco, 1–16.Google Scholar
- Guy Kahane, Jim AC Everett, Brian D Earp, Lucius Caviola, Nadira S Faber, Molly J Crockett, and Julian Savulescu. 2018. Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.Psychological Review 125, 2 (2018), 131.Google Scholar
- Serhiy Kandul and Oliver Kirchkamp. 2018. Do I care if others lie? Current and future effects when lies can be delegated. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics) 74, C (2018), 70–78.Google Scholar
- Immanuel Kant. 1785. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals.Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Nikos I Karacapilidis and Costas P Pappis. 1997. A framework for group decision support systems: Combining AI tools and OR techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 103, 2 (1997), 373–388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aria Khademi and Vasant Honavar. 2020. Algorithmic bias in recidivism prediction: A causal perspective (student abstract). In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. The AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California USA, 13839–13840.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lorraine Kisselburgh, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Lorrie Cranor, Jonathan Lazar, and Vicki L Hanson. 2020. HCI Ethics, Privacy, Accessibility, and the Environment: A Town Hall Forum on Global Policy Issues. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Cass R Sunstein. 2018. Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms. Journal of Legal Analysis 10 (2018), 113–174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017)(Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 67), Christos H. Papadimitriou (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 43:1–43:23.Google Scholar
- Markus Kneer and Michael T Stuart. 2021. Playing the Blame Game with Robots. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States, 407–411.Google Scholar
- Rafal Kocielnik, Saleema Amershi, and Paul N. Bennett. 2019. Will You Accept an Imperfect AI? Exploring Designs for Adjusting End-User Expectations of AI Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300641Google ScholarDigital Library
- John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80.Google Scholar
- Min Hun Lee, Daniel P. Siewiorek, Asim Smailagic, Alexandre Bernardino, and Sergi Bermúdez i Badia. 2021. A Human-AI Collaborative Approach for Clinical Decision Making on Rehabilitation Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 392, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445472Google ScholarDigital Library
- Min Kyung Lee, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Michael Carl Tschantz, Reuben Binns, Adrian Weller, Michelle Carney, and Kori Inkpen. 2020. Human-centered approaches to fair and responsible AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhuying Li, Yan Wang, Wei Wang, Stefan Greuter, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2020. Empowering a Creative City: Engage Citizens in Creating Street Art through Human-AI Collaboration. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382976Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gabriel Lima and Meeyoung Cha. 2020. Descriptive AI Ethics: Collecting and Understanding the Public Opinion, In Ethics in Design Workshop. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05957 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, and Meeyoung Cha. 2021. Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick Lin. 2016. Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 69–85.Google Scholar
- Jennifer M Logg, Julia A Minson, and Don A Moore. 2019. Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 151 (2019), 90–103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michele Loi and Markus Christen. 2019. How to include ethics in machine learning research. ERCIM News 116, 3 (2019), 5.Google Scholar
- Zhuoran Lu and Ming Yin. 2021. Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models When Performance Feedback is Limited: Heuristics and Risks. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Calibrating Pedestrians’ Trust in Automated Vehicles: Does an Intent Display in an External HMI Support Trust Calibration and Safe Crossing Behavior?. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17.Google Scholar
- John Mackie. 1990. Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin UK, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Bertram F Malle and Daniel Ullman. 2021. A multidimensional conception and measure of human-robot trust. In Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 3–25.Google Scholar
- Andreas Matthias. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information technology 6, 3 (2004), 175–183.Google Scholar
- Victoria McGeer. 2008. Trust, hope and empowerment. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86, 2 (2008), 237–254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ree M Meertens and Rene Lion. 2008. Measuring an individual’s tendency to take risks: the risk propensity scale 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38, 6 (2008), 1506–1520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 6 (2021), 1–35.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephanie M Merritt, Heather Heimbaugh, Jennifer LaChapell, and Deborah Lee. 2013. I trust it, but I don’t know why: Effects of implicit attitudes toward automation on trust in an automated system. Human factors 55, 3 (2013), 520–534.Google Scholar
- Leila Methnani, Andrea Aler Tubella, Virginia Dignum, and Andreas Theodorou. 2021. Let Me Take Over: Variable Autonomy for Meaningful Human Control. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 (2021), 133.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Stuart Mill. 1861. 1998. Utilitarianism, edited with an introduction by Roger Crisp. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial intelligence 267 (2019), 1–38.Google Scholar
- Matteo Monti. 2019. Automated journalism and freedom of information: Ethical and juridical problems related to AI in the press field. Opinio Juris in Comparatione 1 (2019), 2018.Google Scholar
- Rajatish Mukherjee, Gerdur Jonsdottir, Sandip Sen, and Partha Sarathi. 2001. Movies2go: an online voting based movie recommender system. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents, Vol. 5. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States, 114–115.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clifford Mynatt and Steven J Sherman. 1975. Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: A direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, 6(1975), 1111.Google Scholar
- Saeid Nahavandi. 2017. Trusted autonomy between humans and robots: Toward human-on-the-loop in robotics and autonomous systems. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Magazine 3, 1 (2017), 10–17.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David T. Newman, N. Fast, and Derek Harmon. 2020. When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 160 (2020), 149–167.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evangelos Niforatos, Adam Palma, Roman Gluszny, Athanasios Vourvopoulos, and Fotis Liarokapis. 2020. Would You Do It?: Enacting Moral Dilemmas in Virtual Reality for Understanding Ethical Decision-Making. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376788Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mahsan Nourani, Chiradeep Roy, Jeremy E Block, Donald R Honeycutt, Tahrima Rahman, Eric Ragan, and Vibhav Gogate. 2021. Anchoring Bias Affects Mental Model Formation and User Reliance in Explainable AI Systems. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 340–350.Google ScholarDigital Library
- International Review of the Red Cross. 2019. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in armed conflict: A human-centred approach. Technical Report 102. ICRC.Google Scholar
- Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. 2020. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Technical Report. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
- Nora Osmani 2020. The Complexity of Criminal Liability of AI Systems. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 14, 1(2020), 53–82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Owens. 2017. Trusting a Promise and Other Things. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 214–29.Google Scholar
- Hyanghee Park, Daehwan Ahn, Kartik Hosanagar, and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Human-AI Interaction in Human Resource Management: Understanding Why Employees Resist Algorithmic Evaluation at Workplaces and How to Mitigate Burdens. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 154, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445304Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philip Pettit. 1995. The cunning of trust. Philosophy & Public Affairs 24, 3 (1995), 202–225.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Azzurra Pini, Jer Hayes, Connor Upton, and Medb Corcoran. 2019. AI Inspired Recipes: Designing Computationally Creative Food Combos. In CHI EA ’19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312948Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marianne Promberger and Jonathan Baron. 2006. Do patients trust computers?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19, 5 (2006), 455–468.Google Scholar
- Martin Ragot, Nicolas Martin, and Salomé Cojean. 2020. Ai-generated vs. human artworks. a perception bias towards artificial intelligence?. In Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10.Google Scholar
- Ilana Ritov and Jonathan Baron. 1992. Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992), 49–61.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kit T Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, and Rayid Ghani. 2021. Empirical observation of negligible fairness–accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policy. Nature Machine Intelligence 3, 10 (2021), 896–904.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rocío Sánchez-Salmerón, José L Gómez-Urquiza, Luis Albendín-García, María Correa-Rodríguez, María Begoña Martos-Cabrera, Almudena Velando-Soriano, and Nora Suleiman-Martos. 2022. Machine learning methods applied to triage in emergency services: A systematic review. International Emergency Nursing 60 (2022), 101109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Filippo Santoni de Sio and Jeroen Van den Hoven. 2018. Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018), 15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anuschka Schmitt, Thiemo Wambsganss, Matthias Söllner, and Andreas Janson. 2021. Towards a Trust Reliance Paradox? Exploring the Gap Between Perceived Trust in and Reliance on Algorithmic Advice. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Vol. 1. ICIS, Austin, Texas, 1–17.Google Scholar
- Donghee Shin. 2021. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 146 (2021), 102551.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthias Söllner, Axel Hoffmann, Holger Hoffmann, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2012. How to use behavioral research insights on trust for HCI system design. In CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1703–1708.Google Scholar
- Mark Spranca, Elisa Minsk, and Jonathan Baron. 1991. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27, 1 (1991), 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-TGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- S Shyam Sundar. 2008. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
- S Shyam Sundar and Jinyoung Kim. 2019. Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S Shyam Sundar, Jinyoung Kim, Mary Beth Rosson, and Maria D Molina. 2020. Online privacy heuristics that predict information disclosure. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steven C Sutherland, Casper Harteveld, and Michael E Young. 2015. The role of environmental predictability and costs in relying on automation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2535–2544.Google ScholarDigital Library
- the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 2020. Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems. Technical Report. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
- Thomas Theodoridis, Vassilios Solachidis, Kosmas Dimitropoulos, Lazaros Gymnopoulos, and Petros Daras. 2019. A survey on AI nutrition recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States, 540–546.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judith Jarvis Thomson. 1976. Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist 59, 2 (1976), 204–217.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neil Thurman, Judith Moeller, Natali Helberger, and Damian Trilling. 2019. My friends, editors, algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection. Digital Journalism 7, 4 (2019), 447–469.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel W Tigard. 2021. Responsible AI and moral responsibility: a common appreciation. AI and Ethics 1, 2 (2021), 113–117.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter M Todd and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2000. Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and brain sciences 23, 5 (2000), 727–741.Google Scholar
- Suzanne Tolmeijer, Ujwal Gadiraju, Ramya Ghantasala, Akshit Gupta, and Abraham Bernstein. 2021. Second Chance for a First Impression? Trust Development in Intelligent System Interaction. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–87.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suzanne Tolmeijer, Markus Kneer, Cristina Sarasua, Markus Christen, and Abraham Bernstein. 2020. Implementations in machine ethics: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 53, 6 (2020), 1–38.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992), 297–323.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kailas Vodrahalli, Tobias Gerstenberg, and James Zou. 2021. Do Humans Trust Advice More if it Comes from AI? An Analysis of Human-AI Interactions. CoRR abs/2107.07015(2021), 1–34. arxiv:2107.07015https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07015Google Scholar
- Michael A Wallach, Nathan Kogan, and Daryl J Bem. 1964. Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 3(1964), 263.Google Scholar
- Dakuo Wang, Elizabeth Churchill, Pattie Maes, Xiangmin Fan, Ben Shneiderman, Yuanchun Shi, and Qianying Wang. 2020. From human-human collaboration to Human-AI collaboration: Designing AI systems that can work together with people. In Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Danding Wang, Qian Yang, Ashraf Abdul, and Brian Y. Lim. 2019. Designing Theory-Driven User-Centric Explainable AI. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300831Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ori Weisel and Shaul Shalvi. 2015. The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 34(2015), 10651–10656.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anja Wölker and Thomas E Powell. 2021. Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism. Journalism 22, 1 (2021), 86–103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-Examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to Design. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301Google ScholarDigital Library
- Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, and John Zimmerman. 2019. Unremarkable AI: Fitting Intelligent Decision Support into Critical, Clinical Decision-Making Processes. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300468Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karen Yeung. 2020. Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (oecd). International Legal Materials 59, 1 (2020), 27–34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scot D. Yoder. 1998. The Nature of Ethical Expertise. The Hastings Center Report 28, 6 (1998), 11–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3528262Google ScholarCross Ref
- Qiaoning Zhang, X Jessie Yang, and Lionel Peter Robert. 2020. Expectations and trust in automated vehicles. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel KE Bellamy, Moninder Singh, and Q Vera Liao. 2020. Introduction to AI Fairness. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making
Recommendations
User Perspectives on Ethical Challenges in Human-AI Co-Creativity: A Design Fiction Study
C&C '23: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and CognitionIn a human-AI co-creation, AI not only categorizes, evaluates and interprets data but also generates new content and interacts with humans. As co-creative AI is a form of intelligent technology that directly involves humans, it is critical to ...
The ethical use of artificial intelligence in human resource management: a decision-making framework
AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly inputting into various human resource management (HRM) functions, such as sourcing job applicants and selecting staff, allocating work, and offering personalized career coaching. While the use of AI for ...
Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making
CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsHow to attribute responsibility for autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems’ actions has been widely debated across the humanities and social science disciplines. This work presents two experiments (N=200 each) that measure people’s perceptions ...
Comments