The introduction of postpartum intrauterine devices in the People's Republic of China

Zhou Wen,Lung Lin,L. Laufe,Beth Dixon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(83)90053-X

1983-04-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Attributions toward Artificial Agents in a modified Moral Turing Test

Eyal Aharoni,Sharlene Fernandes,Daniel J. Brady,Caelan Alexander,Michael Criner,Kara Queen,Javier Rando,Eddy Nahmias,Victor Crespo

2024-04-03

Abstract:Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) raise important questions about whether people view moral evaluations by AI systems similarly to human-generated moral evaluations. We conducted a modified Moral Turing Test (m-MTT), inspired by Allen and colleagues' (2000) proposal, by asking people to distinguish real human moral evaluations from those made by a popular advanced AI language model: GPT-4. A representative sample of 299 U.S. adults first rated the quality of moral evaluations when blinded to their source. Remarkably, they rated the AI's moral reasoning as superior in quality to humans' along almost all dimensions, including virtuousness, intelligence, and trustworthiness, consistent with passing what Allen and colleagues call the comparative MTT. Next, when tasked with identifying the source of each evaluation (human or computer), people performed significantly above chance levels. Although the AI did not pass this test, this was not because of its inferior moral reasoning but, potentially, its perceived superiority, among other possible explanations. The emergence of language models capable of producing moral responses perceived as superior in quality to humans' raises concerns that people may uncritically accept potentially harmful moral guidance from AI. This possibility highlights the need for safeguards around generative language models in matters of morality.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language
The Moral Psychology of Artificial Intelligence

Ali Ladak,Steve Loughnan,Matti Wilks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231205866

IF: 7.867

2023-12-02

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract:Current Directions in Psychological Science, Ahead of Print. Artificial intelligences (AIs), although often perceived as mere tools, have increasingly advanced cognitive and social capacities. In response, psychologists are studying people's perceptions of AIs as moral agents (entities that can do right and wrong) and moral patients (entities that can be targets of right and wrong actions). This article reviews the extent to which people see AIs as moral agents and patients and how they feel about such AIs. We also examine how characteristics about ourselves and the AIs affect attributions of moral agency and patiency. We find multiple factors that contribute to attributions of moral agency and patiency in AIs, some of which overlap with attributions of morality to humans (e.g., mind perception) and some that are unique (e.g., sci-fi fan identity). We identify several future directions, including studying agency and patiency attributions to the latest generation of chatbots and to likely more advanced future AIs that are being rapidly developed.

psychology, multidisciplinary
The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One

Aikaterina Manoli,Janet V. T. Pauketat,Jacy Reese Anthis

2024-12-09

Abstract:Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely perceived as moral agents responsible for their actions. As AI proliferates, these perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs. We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in two preregistered experiments. In Study 1 (N = 720), we established the moral spillover effect in human-AI interaction by showing that immoral actions increased attributions of negative moral agency (i.e., acting immorally) and decreased attributions of positive moral agency (i.e., acting morally) and moral patiency (i.e., deserving moral concern) to both the agent (a chatbot or human assistant) and the group to which they belong (all chatbot or human assistants). There was no significant difference in the spillover effects between the AI and human contexts. In Study 2 (N = 684), we tested whether spillover persisted when the agent was individuated with a name and described as an AI or human, rather than specifically as a chatbot or personal assistant. We found that spillover persisted in the AI context but not in the human context, possibly because AIs were perceived as more homogeneous due to their outgroup status relative to humans. This asymmetry suggests a double standard whereby AIs are judged more harshly than humans when one agent morally transgresses. With the proliferation of diverse, autonomous AI systems, HCI research and design should account for the fact that experiences with one AI could easily generalize to perceptions of all AIs and negative HCI outcomes, such as reduced trust.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Emerging Technologies,Human-Computer Interaction
People judge others more harshly after talking to bots

Kian Siong Tey,Asaf Mazar,Geoff Tomaino,Angela L Duckworth,Lyle H Ungar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae397

2024-09-19

PNAS Nexus

Abstract:People now commonly interact with Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents. How do these interactions shape how humans perceive each other? In two preregistered studies (total N = 1,261), we show that people evaluate other humans more harshly after interacting with an AI (compared with an unrelated purported human). In Study 1, participants who worked on a creative task with AIs (versus purported humans) subsequently rated another purported human's work more negatively. Study 2 replicated this effect and demonstrated that the results hold even when participants believed their evaluation would not be shared with the purported human. Exploratory analyses of participants' conversations show that prior to their human evaluations they were more demanding, more instrumental and displayed less positive affect towards AIs (versus purported humans). These findings point to a potentially worrisome side effect of the exponential rise in human-AI interactions.
Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing

J. Elliott Casal,Matthew Kessler,Matt Kessler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068

2023-12-01

Research Methods in Applied Linguistics

Abstract:There has been considerable intrigue surrounding the use of Large Language Model powered AI chatbots such as ChatGPT in research, educational contexts, and beyond. However, most studies have explored such tools’ general capabilities and applications for language teaching purposes. The current study advances this discussion to examine issues pertaining to human judgements, accuracy, and research ethics. Specifically, we investigate: 1) the extent to which linguists/reviewers from top journals can distinguish AI- from human-generated writing, 2) what the basis of reviewers’ decisions are, and 3) the extent to which editors of top Applied Linguistics journals believe AI tools are ethical for research purposes. In the study, reviewers (N = 72) completed a judgement task involving AI- and human-generated research abstracts, and several reviewers participated in follow-up interviews to explain their rationales. Similarly, editors (N = 27) completed a survey and interviews to discuss their beliefs. Findings suggest that despite employing multiple rationales to judge texts, reviewers were largely unsuccessful in identifying AI versus human writing, with an overall positive identification rate of only 38.9%. Additionally, many editors believed there are ethical uses of AI tools for facilitating research processes, yet some disagreed. Future research directions are discussed involving AI tools and academic publishing.

English Else
Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI

Zaixuan Zhang,Zhansheng Chen,Liying Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104327

IF: 3.532

2022-07-01

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) has become deeply integrated into daily life; thus, it is important to examine how people perceive AI as it functions as a decision-maker, especially in situations involving moral dilemmas. Across four studies (N = 804), we found that people perceive AI as more likely to make utilitarian choices than human beings are (Studies1–4). We then measured people's perceptions (both warmth and competence) toward AI and explored their potential contributions to our predicted main effect (Study 2). In addition, our main effect was replicated in impersonal moral dilemma and personal high-conflict moral dilemma situations (Studies 3 and 4). We discuss the implications of these findings on moral dilemma and human–computer interactions.

psychology, social
The Illusion of Empathy: How AI Chatbots Shape Conversation Perception

Tingting Liu,Salvatore Giorgi,Ankit Aich,Allison Lahnala,Brenda Curtis,Lyle Ungar,João Sedoc

2024-11-20

Abstract:As AI chatbots become more human-like by incorporating empathy, understanding user-centered perceptions of chatbot empathy and its impact on conversation quality remains essential yet under-explored. This study examines how chatbot identity and perceived empathy influence users' overall conversation experience. Analyzing 155 conversations from two datasets, we found that while GPT-based chatbots were rated significantly higher in conversational quality, they were consistently perceived as less empathetic than human conversational partners. Empathy ratings from GPT-4o annotations aligned with users' ratings, reinforcing the perception of lower empathy in chatbots. In contrast, 3 out of 5 empathy models trained on human-human conversations detected no significant differences in empathy language between chatbots and humans. Our findings underscore the critical role of perceived empathy in shaping conversation quality, revealing that achieving high-quality human-AI interactions requires more than simply embedding empathetic language; it necessitates addressing the nuanced ways users interpret and experience empathy in conversations with chatbots.

Human-Computer Interaction,Artificial Intelligence
Why people judge humans differently from machines: The role of perceived agency and experience

Jingling Zhang,Jane Conway,César A. Hidalgo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.10081

2023-09-19

Abstract:People are known to judge artificial intelligence using a utilitarian moral philosophy and humans using a moral philosophy emphasizing perceived intentions. But why do people judge humans and machines differently? Psychology suggests that people may have different mind perception models of humans and machines, and thus, will treat human-like robots more similarly to the way they treat humans. Here we present a randomized experiment where we manipulated people's perception of machine agency (e.g., ability to plan, act) and experience (e.g., ability to feel) to explore whether people judge machines that are perceived to be more similar to humans along these two dimensions more similarly to the way they judge humans. We find that people's judgments of machines become more similar to that of humans when they perceive machines as having more agency but not more experience. Our findings indicate that people's use of different moral philosophies to judge humans and machines can be explained by a progression of mind perception models where the perception of agency plays a prominent role. These findings add to the body of evidence suggesting that people's judgment of machines becomes more similar to that of humans motivating further work on dimensions modulating people's judgment of human and machine actions.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
The impact of text topic and assumed human vs. AI authorship on competence and quality assessment

Sebastian Proksch,Julia Schühle,Elisabeth Streeb,Finn Weymann,Teresa Luther,Joachim Kimmerle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1412710

2024-05-31

Abstract:Background: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are considered positively with respect to technological progress and abilities, people are rather opposed to machines making moral decisions. But the circumstances under which algorithm aversion or algorithm appreciation are more likely to occur with respect to LLMs have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate how texts with moral or technological topics, allegedly written either by a human author or by ChatGPT, are perceived. Methods: In a randomized controlled experiment, n = 164 participants read six texts, three of which had a moral and three a technological topic (predictor text topic). The alleged author of each text was randomly either labeled "ChatGPT" or "human author" (predictor authorship). We captured three dependent variables: assessment of author competence, assessment of content quality, and participants' intention to submit the text in a hypothetical university course (sharing intention). We hypothesized interaction effects, that is, we expected ChatGPT to score lower than alleged human authors for moral topics and higher than alleged human authors for technological topics and vice versa. Results: We only found a small interaction effect for perceived author competence, p = 0.004, d = 0.40, but not for the other dependent variables. However, ChatGPT was consistently devalued compared to alleged human authors across all dependent variables: there were main effects of authorship for assessment of the author competence, p < 0.001, d = 0.95; for assessment of content quality, p < 0.001, d = 0.39; as well as for sharing intention, p < 0.001, d = 0.57. There was also a small main effect of text topic on the assessment of text quality, p = 0.002, d = 0.35. Conclusion: These results are more in line with previous findings on algorithm aversion than with algorithm appreciation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the acceptance of the use of LLMs for text composition.
Which Artificial Intelligences Do People Care About Most? A Conjoint Experiment on Moral Consideration

Ali Ladak,Jamie Harris,Jacy Reese Anthis

2024-03-14

Abstract:Many studies have identified particular features of artificial intelligences (AI), such as their autonomy and emotion expression, that affect the extent to which they are treated as subjects of moral consideration. However, there has not yet been a comparison of the relative importance of features as is necessary to design and understand increasingly capable, multi-faceted AI systems. We conducted an online conjoint experiment in which 1,163 participants evaluated descriptions of AIs that varied on these features. All 11 features increased how morally wrong participants considered it to harm the AIs. The largest effects were from human-like physical bodies and prosociality (i.e., emotion expression, emotion recognition, cooperation, and moral judgment). For human-computer interaction designers, the importance of prosociality suggests that, because AIs are often seen as threatening, the highest levels of moral consideration may only be granted if the AI has positive intentions.

Human-Computer Interaction
Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making

Gabriel Lima,Nina Grgić-Hlača,Meeyoung Cha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445260

2021-02-01

Abstract:How 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 of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents in the context of bail decision-making. Using real-life adapted vignettes, our experiments show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. However, there was a meaningful difference in how people perceived these agents' moral responsibility; human agents were ascribed to a higher degree of present-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibility than AI agents. We also found that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature. We discuss policy and HCI implications of these findings, such as the need for explainable AI in high-stakes scenarios.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction
Do You Trust ChatGPT? -- Perceived Credibility of Human and AI-Generated Content

Martin Huschens,Martin Briesch,Dominik Sobania,Franz Rothlauf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.02524

2023-09-06

Abstract:This paper examines how individuals perceive the credibility of content originating from human authors versus content generated by large language models, like the GPT language model family that powers ChatGPT, in different user interface versions. Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that regardless of the user interface presentation, participants tend to attribute similar levels of credibility. While participants also do not report any different perceptions of competence and trustworthiness between human and AI-generated content, they rate AI-generated content as being clearer and more engaging. The findings from this study serve as a call for a more discerning approach to evaluating information sources, encouraging users to exercise caution and critical thinking when engaging with content generated by AI systems.

Human-Computer Interaction,Artificial Intelligence
Psychological and Brain Responses to Artificial Intelligence's Violation of Community Ethics

Yue He,Ruolei Gu,Guangzhi Deng,Yongling Lin,Tian Gan,Fang Cui,Chao Liu,Yue-Jia Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0524

Abstract:Human moral reactions to artificial intelligence (AI) agents' behavior constitute an important aspect of modern-day human-AI relationships. Although previous studies have mainly focused on autonomy ethics, this study investigates how individuals judge AI agents' violations of community ethics (including betrayals and subversions) compared with human violations. Participants' behavioral responses, event-related potentials (ERPs), and individual differences were assessed. Behavioral findings reveal that participants rated AI agents' community-violating actions less morally negative than human transgressions, possibly because AI agents are commonly perceived as having less agency than human adults. The ERP N1 component showed the same pattern with moral rating scores, indicating the modulation effect of human-AI differences on initial moral intuitions. Moreover, the level of social withdrawal correlated with a smaller N1 in the human condition but not in the AI condition. The N2 and P2 components were sensitive to the difference between the loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion domains but not human/AI differences. Individual levels of moral sense and autistic traits also influenced behavioral data, especially on the loyalty/betrayal domain. In our opinion, these findings offer insights for predicting moral responses to AI agents and guiding ethical AI development aligned with human moral values.
Humans perceive warmth and competence in artificial intelligence

Kevin R. McKee,Xuechunzi Bai,Susan T. Fiske

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107256

IF: 5.8

2023-08-01

iScience

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (A.I.) increasingly suffuses everyday life. However, people are frequently reluctant to interact with A.I. systems. This challenges both the deployment of beneficial A.I. technology and the development of deep learning systems that depend on humans for oversight, direction, and regulation. Nine studies (N = 3,300) demonstrate that social-cognitive processes guide human interactions across a diverse range of real-world A.I. systems. Across studies, perceived warmth and competence emerge prominently in participants' impressions of A.I. systems. Judgments of warmth and competence systematically depend on human-A.I. interdependence and autonomy. In particular, participants perceive systems that optimize interests aligned with human interests as warmer and systems that operate independently from human direction as more competent. Finally, a prisoner's dilemma game shows that warmth and competence judgments predict participants' willingness to cooperate with a deep-learning system. These results underscore the generality of intent detection to perceptions of a broad array of algorithmic actors.

multidisciplinary sciences
The moral authority of ChatGPT

Sebastian Krügel,Andreas Ostermaier,Matthias Uhl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07098

2023-01-14

Abstract:ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it might improve the moral judgment and decisions of users, who often hold contradictory moral beliefs. Unfortunately, ChatGPT turns out highly inconsistent as a moral advisor. Nonetheless, it influences users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT threatens to corrupt rather than improves users' judgment. These findings raise the question of how to ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT and similar AI. Transparency is often touted but seems ineffective. We propose training to improve digital literacy.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Human-Computer Interaction,Machine Learning
I Am Not Your Typical Chatbot: Hedonic and Utilitarian Evaluation of Open-Domain Chatbots

Joo-Wha Hong Katrin Fischer Donggyu Kim Justin Hyundong Cho Yuan Sun a Department of Applied Artificial Intelligence,Sungkyunkwan University,Seoul,South Koreab Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism,University of Southern California,Los Angeles,CA,USAc Information Sciences Institute,University of Southern California,Los Angeles,CA,USAd College of Journalism,Communications University of Florida,Gainesville,FL,USAJoo-Wha Hong is an assistant professor at Sungkyunkwan University. His research primarily focuses on the social influence of autonomous machines,particularly artificial intelligence (AI),with an emphasis on the cognitive and psychological aspects of human-AI interaction. He explores how individuals perceive machines in social roles and develop relationships with them.Katrin Fischer is a quantitative social scientist and human-machine communication scholar with a focus on human-robot interaction. Her research explores the cognitive,social,and technology-based processes that affect expectations and decision-making when humans communicate with (embodied) artificial intelligence systems.Donggyu Kim is a PhD student at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. He studies the psychological underpinnings of human-AI interaction. His recent research focuses on how AI-mediated communication influences message persuasion and how Generative AI transforms work processes.Justin Hyundong Cho is a PhD candidate at University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute. His research is centered around improving and understanding the role of language models in human-AI interactions to develop accessible and reliable digital assistants.Yuan Sun is an Assistant Professor of Advertising at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on the role of artificial intelligence in strategic communication,exploring algorithmic transparency,user trust in AI media interfaces,and consumer interactions with AI in digital health,advertising,and news consumption.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2416016

IF: 4.92

2024-10-23

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract:With the development of natural language processing (NLP), open-domain chatbots can operate as companions. The success of open-domain chatbots depends on understanding how positive and negative expectancy violations affect both utilitarian and hedonic gratification, which in turn influences user satisfaction and continued use. Therefore, this study examines how violations of expectations influence the hedonic and utilitarian evaluations of open-domain chatbots using the expectancy-violation theory. Participants ( n = 204) interacted with an improvising AI chatbot and reported their satisfaction. Results indicated that both hedonic and utilitarian satisfaction were higher when negative expectations were met compared to when expectations were violated. However, no significant difference was found in hedonic gratification between the chatbot's expected performance and positively unexpected performance. Conversations meeting expectations elicited more utilitarian satisfaction than positively surprising interactions. These findings highlight the dynamics between value types and expectation violations in AI chatbot evaluations.

computer science, cybernetics,ergonomics
Human-centred artificial intelligence: a contextual morality perspective

Niels van Berkel,Benjamin Tag,Jorge Goncalves,Simo Hosio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1818828

2020-09-12

Behaviour and Information Technology

Abstract:The emergence of big data combined with the technical developments in Artificial Intelligence has enabled novel opportunities for autonomous and continuous decision support. While initial work has begun to explore how human morality can inform the decision making of future Artificial Intelligence applications, these approaches typically consider human morals as static and immutable. In this work, we present an initial exploration of the effect of context on human morality from a Utilitarian perspective. Through an online narrative transportation study, in which participants are primed with either a positive story, a negative story or a control condition ( N = 82), we collect participants' perceptions on technology that has to deal with moral judgment in changing contexts. Based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of participant responses, we contrast participant perceptions to related work on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. Our work highlights the importance of contextual morality for Artificial Intelligence and identifies opportunities for future work through a FACT-based (Fairness, Accountability, Context and Transparency) perspective.

ergonomics,computer science, cybernetics
Assessing Large Language Models' ability to predict how humans balance self-interest and the interest of others

Valerio Capraro,Roberto Di Paolo,Veronica Pizziol

2024-02-16

Abstract:Generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds enormous potential to revolutionize decision-making processes, from everyday to high-stake scenarios. By leveraging generative AI, humans can benefit from data-driven insights and predictions, enhancing their ability to make informed decisions that consider a wide array of factors and potential outcomes. However, as many decisions carry social implications, for AI to be a reliable assistant for decision-making it is crucial that it is able to capture the balance between self-interest and the interest of others. We investigate the ability of three of the most advanced chatbots to predict dictator game decisions across 108 experiments with human participants from 12 countries. We find that only GPT-4 (not Bard nor Bing) correctly captures qualitative behavioral patterns, identifying three major classes of behavior: self-interested, inequity-averse, and fully altruistic. Nonetheless, GPT-4 consistently underestimates self-interest and inequity-aversion, while overestimating altruistic behavior. This bias has significant implications for AI developers and users, as overly optimistic expectations about human altruism may lead to disappointment, frustration, suboptimal decisions in public policy or business contexts, and even social conflict.

General Economics,Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Computer Science and Game Theory
Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative Values

Jon Chun,Katherine Elkins

2024-01-09

Abstract:With the rise of individual and collaborative networks of autonomous agents, AI is deployed in more key reasoning and decision-making roles. For this reason, ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation. This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4. We assess explicability and trustworthiness by a) establishing how well different models engage in moral reasoning and b) comparing normative values underlying models as ethical frameworks. We employ an experimental, evidence-based approach that challenges the models with ethical dilemmas in order to probe human-AI alignment. The ethical scenarios are designed to require a decision in which the particulars of the situation may or may not necessitate deviating from normative ethical principles. A sophisticated ethical framework was consistently elicited in one model, GPT-4. Nonetheless, troubling findings include underlying normative frameworks with clear bias towards particular cultural norms. Many models also exhibit disturbing authoritarian tendencies. Code is available at

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence

The introduction of postpartum intrauterine devices in the People's Republic of China

Attributions toward Artificial Agents in a modified Moral Turing Test

The Moral Psychology of Artificial Intelligence

The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One

People judge others more harshly after talking to bots

Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing

Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI

The Illusion of Empathy: How AI Chatbots Shape Conversation Perception

Why people judge humans differently from machines: The role of perceived agency and experience

The impact of text topic and assumed human vs. AI authorship on competence and quality assessment

Which Artificial Intelligences Do People Care About Most? A Conjoint Experiment on Moral Consideration

Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making

Do You Trust ChatGPT? -- Perceived Credibility of Human and AI-Generated Content

Psychological and Brain Responses to Artificial Intelligence's Violation of Community Ethics

Humans perceive warmth and competence in artificial intelligence

The moral authority of ChatGPT

I Am Not Your Typical Chatbot: Hedonic and Utilitarian Evaluation of Open-Domain Chatbots

Human-centred artificial intelligence: a contextual morality perspective

Assessing Large Language Models' ability to predict how humans balance self-interest and the interest of others

Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative Values