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

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.

arXiv comment17 Pages, 5 Figures, ACM CHI 2021

References in corpus (9)

• Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
• The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
• Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract
• Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction
• How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness
• Ask Not What AI Can Do, But What AI Should Do: Towards a Framework of Task Delegability
• Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences
• Person-Job Fit: Adapting the Right Talent for the Right Job with Joint Representation Learning
• Responsible AI and Its Stakeholders

Cited by in corpus (13)

• The Conflict Between Explainable and Accountable Decision-Making Algorithms
• Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic Harm
• The Conflict Between People's Urge to Punish AI and Legal Systems
• Plan-Then-Execute: An Empirical Study of User Trust and Team Performance When Using LLM Agents As A Daily Assistant
• Perceptions of Sentient AI and Other Digital Minds: Evidence from the AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey
• Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased People
• Robots, Chatbots, Self-Driving Cars: Perceptions of Mind and Morality Across Artificial Intelligences
• Public Opinions About Copyright for AI-Generated Art: The Role of Egocentricity, Competition, and Experience
• Can AI Model the Complexities of Human Moral Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Kidney Allocation Decisions
• Design Considerations for Human Oversight of AI: Insights from Co-Design Workshops and Work Design Theory
• Give Me a Choice: The Consequences of Restricting Choices Through AI-Support for Perceived Autonomy, Motivational Variables, and Decision Performance
• Towards Uncertainty Aware Task Delegation and Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making
• On Blame Attribution for Accountable Multi-Agent Sequential Decision Making