Abstract
People are offloading many tasks to artificial intelligence (AI)—including driving, investing decisions, and medical choices—but it is human nature to want to maintain ultimate control. So even when using autonomous machines, people want a “manual mode”, an option that shifts control back to themselves. Unfortunately, the mere existence of manual mode leads to more human blame when AI makes mistakes. When observers know that a human agent theoretically had the option to take control, the humans are assigned more responsibility, even when agents lack the time or ability to actually exert control, as with self-driving car crashes. Four experiments reveal that though people prefer having a manual mode, even if the AI mode is more efficient and adding the manual mode is more expensive (Study 1), the existence of a manual mode increases human blame (Studies 2a-3c). We examine two mediators for this effect: increased perceptions of causation and counterfactual cognition (Study 4). The results suggest that the human thirst for illusory control comes with real costs. Implications of AI decision-making are discussed.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 105931 |
Journal | Cognition |
Volume | 252 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Nov 2024 |
Keywords
- AI ethics
- Autonomous machines
- Blame
- Control
- Manual mode
- Morality
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Language and Linguistics
- Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Linguistics and Language
- Cognitive Neuroscience