Abstract:This study examined how personalized large language models (LLMs) affect laypeople's attributions of credit and blame for AI‐generated content. In a preregistered experiment (N = 1802) across four countries, personalized LLMs increased credit for beneficial output but did not impact blame for harmful writing, with some national differences. Personalization could impact human–AI collaboration by influencing perceived moral responsibility of human users for cocreated outputs. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) raises ethical questions concerning moral and legal responsibility—specifically, the attributions of credit and blame for AI‐generated content. For example, if a human invests minimal skill or effort to produce a beneficial output with an AI tool, can the human still take credit? How does the answer change if the AI has been personalized (i.e., fine‐tuned) on previous outputs produced without AI assistance by the same human? We conducted a preregistered experiment with representative sampling (N = 1802) repeated in four countries (United States, United Kingdom, China, and Singapore). We investigated laypeople's attributions of credit and blame to human users for producing beneficial or harmful outputs with a standard large language model (LLM), a personalized LLM, or no AI assistance (control condition). Participants generally attributed more credit to human users of personalized versus standard LLMs for beneficial outputs, whereas LLM type did not significantly affect blame attributions for harmful outputs, with a partial exception among Chinese participants. In addition, UK participants attributed more blame for using any type of LLM versus no LLM. Practical, ethical, and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Playing the Blame Game with Robots

Moral reasoning in a digital age: blaming artificial intelligence for incorrect high-risk decisions

Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic Harm

Guilty Artificial Minds

Why Is Artificial Intelligence Blamed More? Analysis of Faulting Artificial Intelligence for Self-Driving Car Accidents in Experimental Settings

Anthropomorphism-based causal and responsibility attributions to robots

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

People's judgments of humans and robots in a classic moral dilemma

The blame game: Understanding blame assignment in social media

Mindful Explanations: Prevalence and Impact of Mind Attribution in XAI Research

The Guilty (Silicon) Mind: Blameworthiness and Liability in Human-Machine Teaming

Attributions toward Artificial Agents in a modified Moral Turing Test

Credit and blame for AI–generated content: Effects of personalization in four countries

The Fundamental Attribution Error in Human-Robot Interaction: An Experimental Investigation on Attributing Responsibility to a Social Robot for Its Pre-Programmed Behavior

Perceptions of artificial intelligence system's aptitude to judge morality and competence amidst the rise of Chatbots

When both human and machine drivers make mistakes: Whom to blame?

Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration

Who Is to Blame? The Appearance of Virtual Agents and the Attribution of Perceived Responsibility

What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems

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