Trust within human-machine collectives depends on the perceived consensus about cooperative norms.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 05 2023
30 05 2023
Historique:
received:
09
06
2021
accepted:
09
05
2023
medline:
1
6
2023
pubmed:
31
5
2023
entrez:
30
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the progress of artificial intelligence and the emergence of global online communities, humans and machines are increasingly participating in mixed collectives in which they can help or hinder each other. Human societies have had thousands of years to consolidate the social norms that promote cooperation; but mixed collectives often struggle to articulate the norms which hold when humans coexist with machines. In five studies involving 7917 individuals, we document the way people treat machines differently than humans in a stylized society of beneficiaries, helpers, punishers, and trustors. We show that a different amount of trust is gained by helpers and punishers when they follow norms over not doing so. We also demonstrate that the trust-gain of norm-followers is associated with trustors' assessment about the consensual nature of cooperative norms over helping and punishing. Lastly, we establish that, under certain conditions, informing trustors about the norm-consensus over helping tends to decrease the differential treatment of both machines and people interacting with them. These results allow us to anticipate how humans may develop cooperative norms for human-machine collectives, specifically, by relying on already extant norms in human-only groups. We also demonstrate that this evolution may be accelerated by making people aware of their emerging consensus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37253759
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38592-5
pii: 10.1038/s41467-023-38592-5
pmc: PMC10229533
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3108Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Feb 11;117(6):2858-2863
pubmed: 31988112
Nature. 2021 May;593(7857):33-36
pubmed: 33947992
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Oct;111(4):493-504
pubmed: 27295328
Nature. 2019 Apr;568(7753):477-486
pubmed: 31019318
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):59-64
pubmed: 30356211
Nature. 2016 Feb 25;530(7591):473-6
pubmed: 26911783
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Oct;2(10):757-764
pubmed: 31406290
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 20;9(1):4787
pubmed: 30459415
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0171774
pubmed: 28231323
Annu Rev Psychol. 2021 Jan 4;72:415-438
pubmed: 33006926
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Feb 2;113(5):1291-6
pubmed: 26787890
Theor Popul Biol. 2004 Feb;65(1):17-28
pubmed: 14642341
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jul;2(7):458-468
pubmed: 31097815
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Aug 13;116(33):16274-16279
pubmed: 31358645
AJS. 2009 Sep;115(2):451-90
pubmed: 20614762
Hum Factors. 2011 Oct;53(5):517-27
pubmed: 22046724
Trends Ecol Evol. 2015 Feb;30(2):98-103
pubmed: 25577128
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):433-442
pubmed: 27071389
Nature. 2017 May 17;545(7654):370-374
pubmed: 28516927
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Dec 4;115(49):12435-12440
pubmed: 30459270
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Sep;4(9):889-897
pubmed: 32601460
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):105-25
pubmed: 11928886
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 13;10(1):11486
pubmed: 32661258
Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:151-69
pubmed: 11910059
Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98
pubmed: 2270237