Making Moral Decisions With Artificial Agents As Advisors. An fNIRS Study

Eve Floriane Fabre,Damien Mouratille,Vincent Bonnemain,Grazia-Pia Palmiotti,Mickael Causse
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.05.583335
2024-10-09
Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is on the verge of impacting every domain of our lives. It is increasingly being used as an advisor to assist in making decisions. The present study aimed at investigating the influence of moral arguments provided by AI-advisors (i.e., decision aid tool) on human moral decision-making and the associated neural correlates. Participants were presented with sacrificial moral dilemmas and had to make moral decisions either by themselves (i.e., baseline run) or with AI-advisors that provided utilitarian or deontological arguments (i.e., AI-advised run), while their brain activity was measured using an fNIRS device. Overall, AI-advisors significantly influenced participants. Longer response times and a decrease in right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity were observed in response to deontological arguments than to utilitarian arguments. Being provided with deontological arguments by machines appears to have led to a decreased appraisal of the affective response to the dilemmas. This resulted in a reduced level of utilitarianism, supposedly in an attempt to avoid behaving in a less cold-blooded way than machines and preserve their (self-)image. Taken together, these results suggest that motivational power can led to a voluntary up- and down- regulation of affective processes along moral decision-making.
Neuroscience
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is: **to explore the impact of moral arguments provided by artificial intelligence (AI) advisors on human moral decision - making and its related neural activities**. Specifically, through functional near - infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) technology, the researchers observed the changes in the decision - making behaviors and brain activities of participants when facing sacrificial moral dilemmas and when AI advisors provided utilitarian or deontological suggestions. The main objectives of the study include: 1. **Behavioral level**: Evaluate whether different types of moral arguments provided by AI advisors will affect the decision - change rate of participants (that is, compared with the decisions in the baseline run, whether participants will change their choices), and whether this impact depends on the type of moral dilemma (utilitarian vs deontological). 2. **Neural level**: Explore the changes in the activities of participants' brain regions (especially the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, right - DLPFC) after receiving different types of moral arguments. The study predicts that when facing deontological arguments, the right - DLPFC activity of participants will decrease, which may reflect the changes in their cognitive efforts in dealing with emotional responses. ### Research background With the development of artificial intelligence technology, AI is increasingly used as a decision - making - assistance tool, especially in situations involving moral judgment. However, there are relatively few current studies on how AI advisors specifically affect human moral decision - making, especially at the neural - mechanism level. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap and provide new insights into moral decision - making in human - machine interaction. ### Experimental design The experiment is divided into two stages: - **Baseline run**: Participants make moral decisions independently. - **AI - assisted run**: Participants make decisions when AI advisors provide moral arguments and can choose to delegate the decision - execution power to AI. By comparing the data of these two stages, the researchers can analyze the specific impact of AI advisors on human moral decision - making. ### Main findings Preliminary results show that AI advisors significantly affect the decision - making behaviors of participants. In particular, when AI provides deontological arguments, the response time of participants is longer and the activity of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is reduced. These results imply that the presence of AI advisors may cause participants to voluntarily regulate their emotional responses during the moral decision - making process in order to avoid showing more "cold - blooded" behaviors than machines and thus protect their (self) images. In conclusion, this study shows that AI advisors can not only affect human moral decision - making at the behavioral level, but also may affect the cognitive and emotional processing in the decision - making process by changing the brain - activity patterns.