2024/12/12 by Simon Myers, Jim A.C. Everett, Jim A. C. Everett · 4 citations
Neuroscience · Decision Sciences · Psychology · #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment #Ethics in Business and Education #Leadership, Courage, and Heroism Studies
paper · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.106028
As machines powered by artificial intelligence increase in their technological capacities, there is a growing interest in the theoretical and practical idea of artificial moral advisors (AMAs): systems powered by artificial intelligence that are explicitly designed to assist humans in making ethical decisions. Across four pre-registered studies (total N = 2604) we investigated how people perceive and trust artificial moral advisors compared to human advisors. Extending previous work on algorithmic aversion, we show that people have a significant aversion to AMAs (vs humans) giving moral advice, while also showing that this is particularly the case when advisors - human and AI alike - gave advice based on utilitarian principles. We find that participants expect AI to make utilitarian decisions, and that even when participants agreed with a decision made by an AMA, they still expected to disagree with an AMA more than a human in future. Our findings suggest challenges in the adoption of artificial moral advisors, and particularly those who draw on and endorse utilitarian principles - however normatively justifiable. • Across four pre-registered studies we investigated how people trust AI-powered moral advisors compared to human advisors. • AI advisors were trusted less than human advisors, even for the same advice. • Utilitarian advisors were particularly distrusted, even when controlling for participants own moral judgments. • Participants expected artificial moral advisors to make more utilitarian decisions • Our findings suggest challenges in the adoption of AMAs, particularly those who draw on utilitarian principles.