Related papers: A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence

A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19010v1
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 00:54:03 GMT
Title: A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence
Authors: Joel Z. Leibo, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Manfred Diaz, John P. Agapiou, William A. Cunningham, Peter Sunehag, Julia Haas, Raphael Koster, Edgar A. Duéñez-Guzmán, William S. Isaac, Georgios Piliouras, Stanley M. Bileschi, Iyad Rahwan, Simon Osindero,
Abstract summary: We need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it. This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.
Score: 56.23261221948216
License:
Abstract: What is appropriateness? Humans navigate a multi-scale mosaic of interlocking notions of what is appropriate for different situations. We act one way with our friends, another with our family, and yet another in the office. Likewise for AI, appropriate behavior for a comedy-writing assistant is not the same as appropriate behavior for a customer-service representative. What determines which actions are appropriate in which contexts? And what causes these standards to change over time? Since all judgments of AI appropriateness are ultimately made by humans, we need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it. This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.

Related papers

Why should we ever automate moral decision making? [30.428729272730727]
Concerns arise when AI is involved in decisions with significant moral implications. Moral reasoning lacks a broadly accepted framework. An alternative approach involves AI learning from human moral decisions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-10T13:59:22Z)
The Reasonable Person Standard for AI [0.0]
The American legal system often uses the "Reasonable Person Standard" This paper argues that the reasonable person standard provides useful guidelines for the type of behavior we should develop, probe, and stress-test in models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-07T06:35:54Z)
Who Wrote this? How Smart Replies Impact Language and Agency in the Workplace [0.0]
This study uses smart replies (SRs) to show how AI influences humans without any intent on the part of the developer. I propose a loss of agency theory as a viable approach for studying the impact of AI on human agency.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-07T20:06:25Z)
When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)
On Avoiding Power-Seeking by Artificial Intelligence [93.9264437334683]
We do not know how to align a very intelligent AI agent's behavior with human interests. I investigate whether we can build smart AI agents which have limited impact on the world, and which do not autonomously seek power.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-23T16:56:21Z)
Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game. We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP. We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z)
On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)
Crossing the Tepper Line: An Emerging Ontology for Describing the Dynamic Sociality of Embodied AI [0.9176056742068814]
We show how embodied AI can manifest as "socially embodied AI" We define this as the state that embodied AI "circumstantially" take on within interactive contexts when perceived as both social and agentic by people.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-15T00:45:44Z)
Indecision Modeling [50.00689136829134]
It is important that AI systems act in ways which align with human values. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-15T18:32:37Z)
Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.