-
What Do People Think about Sentient AI?
Authors:
Jacy Reese Anthis,
Janet V. T. Pauketat,
Ali Ladak,
Aikaterina Manoli
Abstract:
With rapid advances in machine learning, many people in the field have been discussing the rise of digital minds and the possibility of artificial sentience. Future developments in AI capabilities and safety will depend on public opinion and human-AI interaction. To begin to fill this research gap, we present the first nationally representative survey data on the topic of sentient AI: initial resu…
▽ More
With rapid advances in machine learning, many people in the field have been discussing the rise of digital minds and the possibility of artificial sentience. Future developments in AI capabilities and safety will depend on public opinion and human-AI interaction. To begin to fill this research gap, we present the first nationally representative survey data on the topic of sentient AI: initial results from the Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, a preregistered and longitudinal study of U.S. public opinion that began in 2021. Across one wave of data collection in 2021 and two in 2023 (total N = 3,500), we found mind perception and moral concern for AI well-being in 2021 were higher than predicted and significantly increased in 2023: for example, 71% agree sentient AI deserve to be treated with respect, and 38% support legal rights. People have become more threatened by AI, and there is widespread opposition to new technologies: 63% support a ban on smarter-than-human AI, and 69% support a ban on sentient AI. Expected timelines are surprisingly short and shortening with a median forecast of sentient AI in only five years and artificial general intelligence in only two years. We argue that, whether or not AIs become sentient, the discussion itself may overhaul human-computer interaction and shape the future trajectory of AI technologies, including existential risks and opportunities.
△ Less
Submitted 15 July, 2024; v1 submitted 11 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing
Authors:
Alice Qian Zhang,
Ryland Shaw,
Jacy Reese Anthis,
Ashlee Milton,
Emily Tseng,
Jina Suh,
Lama Ahmad,
Ram Shankar Siva Kumar,
Julian Posada,
Benjamin Shestakofsky,
Sarah T. Roberts,
Mary L. Gray
Abstract:
Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in "red teaming," a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing bod…
▽ More
Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in "red teaming," a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing body of HCI and CSCW literature examines related practices-including data labeling, content moderation, and algorithmic auditing. However, few, if any, have investigated red teaming itself. This workshop seeks to consider the conceptual and empirical challenges associated with this practice, often rendered opaque by non-disclosure agreements. Future studies may explore topics ranging from fairness to mental health and other areas of potential harm. We aim to facilitate a community of researchers and practitioners who can begin to meet these challenges with creativity, innovation, and thoughtful reflection.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Which Artificial Intelligences Do People Care About Most? A Conjoint Experiment on Moral Consideration
Authors:
Ali Ladak,
Jamie Harris,
Jacy Reese Anthis
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…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation
Authors:
Kristian Lum,
Jacy Reese Anthis,
Chirag Nagpal,
Alexander D'Amour
Abstract:
Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible…
▽ More
Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible {Effects (i.e. RUTEd evaluations). We explore this correlation in the context of gender-occupation bias--a popular genre of bias evaluation. We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation. We conduct each evaluation for seven instruction-tuned LLMs. For the RUTEd evaluations, we conduct repeated trials of three text generation tasks: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises. We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations. Specifically, selecting the least biased model based on the de-contextualized results coincides with selecting the model with the best performance on RUTEd evaluations only as often as random chance. We conclude that evaluations that are not based in realistic use are likely insufficient to mitigate and assess bias and real-world harms.
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness
Authors:
Jacy Reese Anthis,
Victor Veitch
Abstract:
Counterfactual fairness requires that a person would have been classified in the same way by an AI or other algorithmic system if they had a different protected class, such as a different race or gender. This is an intuitive standard, as reflected in the U.S. legal system, but its use is limited because counterfactuals cannot be directly observed in real-world data. On the other hand, group fairne…
▽ More
Counterfactual fairness requires that a person would have been classified in the same way by an AI or other algorithmic system if they had a different protected class, such as a different race or gender. This is an intuitive standard, as reflected in the U.S. legal system, but its use is limited because counterfactuals cannot be directly observed in real-world data. On the other hand, group fairness metrics (e.g., demographic parity or equalized odds) are less intuitive but more readily observed. In this paper, we use $\textit{causal context}$ to bridge the gaps between counterfactual fairness, robust prediction, and group fairness. First, we motivate counterfactual fairness by showing that there is not necessarily a fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy because, under plausible conditions, the counterfactually fair predictor is in fact accuracy-optimal in an unbiased target distribution. Second, we develop a correspondence between the causal graph of the data-generating process and which, if any, group fairness metrics are equivalent to counterfactual fairness. Third, we show that in three common fairness contexts$\unicode{x2013}$measurement error, selection on label, and selection on predictors$\unicode{x2013}$counterfactual fairness is equivalent to demographic parity, equalized odds, and calibration, respectively. Counterfactual fairness can sometimes be tested by measuring relatively simple group fairness metrics.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review
Authors:
Jamie Harris,
Jacy Reese Anthis
Abstract:
Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could…
▽ More
Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could warrant moral consideration in the future, if not also the present. The reasoning varies, such as concern for the effects on artificial entities and concern for the effects on human society. Beyond the conventional consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethicist ethical frameworks, some scholars encourage "information ethics" and "social-relational" approaches, though there are opportunities for more in-depth ethical research on the nuances of moral consideration of artificial entities. There is limited relevant empirical data collection, primarily in a few psychological studies on current moral and social attitudes of humans towards robots and other artificial entities. This suggests an important gap for social science research on how artificial entities will be integrated into society and the factors that will determine how the interests of sentient artificial entities are considered.
△ Less
Submitted 26 January, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
