The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes

Mads N. Arnestad, Samuel Meyers*, Kurt Gray, Yochanan E. Bigman

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

People are offloading many tasks to artificial intelligence (AI)—including driving, investing decisions, and medical choices—but it is human nature to want to maintain ultimate control. So even when using autonomous machines, people want a “manual mode”, an option that shifts control back to themselves. Unfortunately, the mere existence of manual mode leads to more human blame when AI makes mistakes. When observers know that a human agent theoretically had the option to take control, the humans are assigned more responsibility, even when agents lack the time or ability to actually exert control, as with self-driving car crashes. Four experiments reveal that though people prefer having a manual mode, even if the AI mode is more efficient and adding the manual mode is more expensive (Study 1), the existence of a manual mode increases human blame (Studies 2a-3c). We examine two mediators for this effect: increased perceptions of causation and counterfactual cognition (Study 4). The results suggest that the human thirst for illusory control comes with real costs. Implications of AI decision-making are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Article number105931
JournalCognition
Volume252
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier B.V.

Keywords

  • AI ethics
  • Autonomous machines
  • Blame
  • Control
  • Manual mode
  • Morality

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this