AI-Induced Human Responsibility (AIHR) in AI-Human teams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08866v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 01:58:59 GMT
• Title: AI-Induced Human Responsibility (AIHR) in AI-Human teams
• Abstract summary: We show that AI-human teaming can increase (rather than dilute) human responsibility.<n>This effect held across high and low harm scenarios and persisted even where self-serving blame-shifting would be expected.<n>These findings extend research on algorithm aversion, hybrid AI-human organizational behavior and responsibility gaps in technology.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As organizations increasingly deploy AI as a teammate rather than a standalone tool, morally consequential mistakes often arise from joint human-AI workflows in which causality is ambiguous. We ask how people allocate responsibility in these hybrid-agent settings. Across four experiments (N = 1,801) in an AI-assisted lending context (e.g., discriminatory rejection, irresponsible lending, and low-harm filing errors), participants consistently attributed more responsibility to the human decision maker when the human was paired with AI than when paired with another human (by an average of 10 points on a 0-100 scale across studies). This AI-Induced Human Responsibility (AIHR) effect held across high and low harm scenarios and persisted even where self-serving blame-shifting (when the human in question was the self) would be expected. Process evidence indicates that AIHR is explained by inferences of agent autonomy: AI is seen as a constrained implementer, which makes the human the default locus of discretionary responsibility. Alternative mechanisms (mind perception; self-threat) did not account for the effect. These findings extend research on algorithm aversion, hybrid AI-human organizational behavior and responsibility gaps in technology by showing that AI-human teaming can increase (rather than dilute) human responsibility, with implications for accountability design in AI-enabled organizations.

Related papers

• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• Trust the AI, Doubt Yourself: The Effect of Urgency on Self-Confidence in Human-AI Interaction [7.401318863477374]
  Studies show that interactions with an AI system fosters trust in human users towards AI.<n>We show that although the presence of urgency in human-AI interactions does not affect the trust in AI, it may be detrimental to the human user's self-confidence and self-efficacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T19:17:59Z)
• Human Attribution of Causality to AI Across Agency, Misuse, and Misalignment [0.0]
  This paper investigates folk perceptions of causal responsibility in causal chain structures when AI systems are involved in harmful outcomes.<n>We conduct human experiments to examine judgments of causality, blame, foreseeability, and counterfactual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T02:48:39Z)
• The Start Button Problem: a basis for human responsibility in artificial intelligence computation [0.0]
  This paper examines the origins and limits of AI autonomy through the analysis of the Alignment Research Center experiment on GPT-4.<n>By examining the thought experiment and its counterarguments, it becomes clear that in its need for human activation and purpose definition lies the AI's inherent dependency on human-initiated actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T20:59:48Z)
• The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One [0.0]
  As AI proliferates, perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs.<n>We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in two preregistered experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-08T19:26:52Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap [56.611702960809644]
  We benchmark AI's ability to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks.<n>Next, we conducted 72,191 Turing-like tests with 1,916 human judges and 10 AI judges.<n>Imitation ability showed minimal correlation with conventional AI performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:16:52Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making [8.688778020322758]
  We measure people's perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents. We show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. We find that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-01T04:07:38Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.