Human-Agent Interaction and Human Dependency: Possible New Approaches for Old Challenges
Pages 214 - 223
Abstract
The role of intelligent agents in research on AI is becoming increasingly significant. The study of embodied intelligent systems, such as social and companion robots, is growing steadily in proportion to the previsions that they will become increasingly involved in the everyday lives of individuals. Non-embodied intelligent systems, such as chatbots or virtual voice assistants, are already part of many people’s everyday experience, being constantly at their disposal. This necessitates a re-evaluation of society as we know it, which must be conceived as a ‘hybrid society’. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how, in such a scenario, a truly human-centred development of intelligent agents necessitates a design that does not capitalise or exploit the natural inclination towards human attachment and empathy, but rather incorporates this into a more responsible framework for human-agent interaction (henceforth HAI). In order to achieve this objective, the topic of human dependency is presented, analysed, and interpreted in the light of one of its main theorisation, formulated in the socio-legal domain. The merit of such a theoretical framework is that it is flexible enough to be applied to all those elements that, once introduced into society, can affect it and alter its equilibrium. This is undoubtedly the case with the artificial agents designated for HAI. Building on this, the paper demonstrates how such an approach could be employed to analyse the dynamics of HAI in a truly human-centred manner, thereby providing a foundation for the future design of artificial agents and the dynamics of interaction with end-users.
References
[1]
Sameera A Abdul-Kader and John C Woods. 2015. Survey on chatbot design techniques in speech conversation systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 6, 7 (2015).
[2]
Reem S Al-Mansoori, Dena Al-Thani, and Raian Ali. 2023. Designing for Digital Wellbeing: From Theory to Practice a Scoping Review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2023, 1 (2023), 9924029.
[3]
Abdulaziz Alblwi, John McAlaney, Dena Ahmed S Al Thani, Keith Phalp, and Raian Ali. 2021. Procrastination on social media: predictors of types, triggers and acceptance of countermeasures. Social Network Analysis and Mining 11, 1 (2021), 19.
[4]
Aarif Alutaybi, Dena Al-Thani, John McAlaney, and Raian Ali. 2020. Combating fear of missing out (FoMO) on social media: The FoMO-R method. International journal of environmental research and public health 17, 17 (2020), 6128.
[5]
Astrid Bertrand, Rafik Belloum, James R Eagan, and Winston Maxwell. 2022. How cognitive biases affect XAI-assisted decision-making: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 78–91.
[6]
Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Marita Skjuve, and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their human–AI friendship. Human Communication Research 48, 3 (2022), 404–429.
[7]
Cynthia Breazeal. 2004. Designing sociable robots. MIT press.
[8]
Cynthia Breazeal and Anne Foerst. 1999. Schmoozing with robots: Exploring the boundary of the original wireless network. In Proc. 3rd. International Cognitive Technology Conference. 375–390.
[9]
Linnda R Caporael. 1986. Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in human behavior 2, 3 (1986), 215–234.
[10]
Rachele Carli. 2021. Social robotics and deception: beyond the ethical approach. Proceedings of BNAIC/BeneLearn 2021 (2021).
[11]
Rachele Carli and Davide Calvaresi. 2024. The Wildcard XAI: from a Necessity, to a Resource, to a Dangerous Decoy. In International Workshop on Explainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Springer.
[12]
Rachele Carli and Amro Najjar. 2023. A Vulnerability-oriented Impact Assessment for the Development of Human-Centred and Fundamental Rights-Empowering Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 404–406.
[13]
Rachele Carli, Amro Najjar, and Davide Calvaresi. 2022. Human-Social Robots Interaction: The blurred line between necessary anthropomorphization and manipulation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 321–323.
[14]
Chien-Hsiung Chen and Xiaoyu Jia. 2023. Effects of head shape, facial features, camera, and gender on the perceptions of rendered robot faces. International Journal of Social Robotics 15, 1 (2023), 71–84.
[15]
Mark D Griffiths, Daria J Kuss, and Daniel L King. 2012. Video game addiction: Past, present and future. Current Psychiatry Reviews 8, 4 (2012), 308–318.
[16]
Luisa Damiano. 2020. Mente, robot ed ecologie sociali miste. Per un’epistemologia sperimentale dei robot sociali. Sistemi intelligenti 32, 1 (2020), 27–39.
[17]
Kerstin Dautenhahn. 1999. Robots as social actors: Aurora and the case of autism. In Proc. CT99, The Third International Cognitive Technology Conference, August, San Francisco, Vol. 359. Citeseer, 374.
[18]
Kevin E Davis and Michael J Trebilcock. 2008. The relationship between law and development: optimists versus skeptics. The American Journal of Comparative Law 56, 4 (2008), 895–946.
[19]
José De-Sola Gutiérrez, Fernando Rodríguez de Fonseca, and Gabriel Rubio. 2016. Cell-phone addiction: A review. Frontiers in psychiatry 7 (2016), 216511.
[20]
Pierpaolo Donati. 2010. Relational sociology: A new paradigm for the social sciences. Routledge.
[21]
Alexander Fedorov. 2014. Media education literacy in the world: Trends. European researcher 67, 1-2 (2014).
[22]
David Feil-Seifer and Maja J Mataric. 2010. Dry your eyes: examining the roles of robots for childcare applications. Interaction Studies 11, 2 (2010), 208.
[23]
Mark Fenwick, Wulf A Kaal, and Erik PM Vermeulen. 2016. Regulation tomorrow: what happens when technology is faster than the law. Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 6 (2016), 561.
[24]
Martha Albertson Fineman. 1998. The inevitability of dependency and the politics of subsidy. Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 9 (1998), 89.
[25]
Martha Albertson Fineman. 2005. The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency. (2005).
[26]
Martha Albertson Fineman. 2013. Vulnerability: reflections on a new ethical foundation for law and politics. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
[27]
Martha Albertson Fineman. 2016. Equality, autonomy, and the vulnerable subject in law and politics. In Vulnerability. Routledge, 13–27.
[28]
Martha LA Fineman. 1995. Masking dependency: The political role of family rhetoric. Va. L. Rev. 81 (1995), 2181.
[29]
Robert Frager and Abraham Harold Maslow. 1987. Motivation and personality. (1987).
[30]
Uta Frith and Chris Frith. 2010. The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 1537 (2010), 165–176.
[31]
Maryam Ghasemaghaei. 2020. The impact of in-depth online recommendation agents on consumer disorientation and cognitive absorption perceptions. Behaviour & Information Technology 39, 4 (2020), 414–430.
[32]
Fauzia Zahira Munirul Hakim, Lia Maulia Indrayani, and Rosaria Mita Amalia. 2019. A dialogic analysis of compliment strategies employed by replika chatbot. In Third International conference of arts, language and culture (ICALC 2018). Atlantis Press, 266–271.
[33]
Donald A Hantula. 2012. Consumers are foragers, not rational actors: towards a behavioral ecology of consumer choice. Handbook of developments in consumer behaviour (2012), 549–577.
[34]
Patrick Hemmer, Max Schemmer, Michael Vössing, and Niklas Kühl. 2021. Human-AI Complementarity in Hybrid Intelligence Systems: A Structured Literature Review.PACIS (2021), 78.
[35]
Paola Inverardi. 2022. The challenge of human dignity in the era of autonomous systems. Perspectives on Digital Humanism (2022), 25–29.
[36]
Sanna Järvelä, Andy Nguyen, and Allyson Hadwin. 2023. Human and artificial intelligence collaboration for socially shared regulation in learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 54, 5 (2023), 1057–1076.
[37]
Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2002. Television addiction is no mere metaphor. Scientific American 286, 2 (2002), 74–80.
[38]
Chei Sian Lee, Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, Shermine Shimin Lau, Wei Yan Low, and Shu Fan. 2022. Understanding users’ perception of cute aesthetics in mobile interface design. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 164–171.
[39]
Othelia EunKyoung Lee, Hyenjoo Lee, Albert Park, and Namkee G Choi. 2024. My precious friend: Human-robot interactions in home care for socially isolated older adults. Clinical Gerontologist 47, 1 (2024), 161–170.
[40]
Haizhou Li, Cabibihan John-John, and Yeow Kee Tan. 2011. Towards an effective design of social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 4 (2011), 333–335.
[41]
Jialin Li. 2020. Humans as social beings-From" People first" to “People-centered". Scientific and Social Research 2, 2 (2020).
[42]
Xinge Li and Yongjun Sung. 2021. Anthropomorphism brings us closer: The mediating role of psychological distance in User–AI assistant interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021), 106680.
[43]
Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2009. Examination of cognitive absorption influencing the intention to use a virtual community. Behaviour & Information Technology 28, 5 (2009), 421–431.
[44]
Jessica Lindblom and Beatrice Alenljung. 2015. Socially embodied human-robot interaction: Addressing human emotions with theories of embodied cognition. In Handbook of Research on Synthesizing Human Emotion in Intelligent Systems and Robotics. IGI Global, 169–190.
[45]
Xingyang Lv, Jingjing Luo, Yuqing Liang, Yuqing Liu, and Chunxiao Li. 2022. Is cuteness irresistible? The impact of cuteness on customers’ intentions to use AI applications. Tourism Management 90 (2022), 104472.
[46]
Kathleen Lynch. 2021. Care and capitalism. John Wiley & Sons.
[47]
Hüseyin Bilal Macït, Gamze Macït, and Orhan Güngör. 2018. A research on social media addiction and dopamine driven feedback. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 5, 3 (2018), 882–897.
[48]
Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. 2014. Introduction: What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (2014), 1–29.
[49]
R Maldonado. 2003. The neurobiology of addiction. Addiction Mechanisms, Phenomenology and Treatment (2003), 1–14.
[50]
Hannah R Marriott and Valentina Pitardi. 2023. One is the loneliest number… Two can be as bad as one. The influence of AI Friendship Apps on users’ well-being and addiction. Psychology & marketing (2023).
[51]
C Dianne Martin. 1993. The myth of the awesome thinking machine. Commun. ACM 36, 4 (1993), 120–133.
[52]
Jani Merikivi, Antti Salovaara, Matti Mäntymäki, and Lilong Zhang. 2018. On the way to understanding binge watching behavior: the over-estimated role of involvement. Electronic Markets 28 (2018), 111–122.
[53]
Jakub Mlynář, Lynn de Rijk, Andreas Liesenfeld, Wyke Stommel, and Saul Albert. 2024. AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies. AI & SOCIETY (2024), 1–31.
[54]
Masahiro Mori, Karl F MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & automation magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98–100.
[55]
Simone Natale. 2021. Deceitful media: Artificial intelligence and social life after the Turing test. Oxford University Press, USA.
[56]
Simone Natale 2023. AI, Human-Machine Communication and Deception.”. The SAGE Handbook of Human-Machine Communication (2023), 401–408.
[57]
Simone Natale, Iliana Depounti, 2024. Artificial sociality. HUMAN-MACHINE COMMUNICATION JOURNAL 7, 5 (2024), 83–98.
[58]
Asoke Nath and Sneha Mukherjee. 2015. Impact of Mobile Phone/Smartphone: A pilot study on positive and negative effects. International Journal 3, 5 (2015), 294–302.
[59]
Dan-Catalin Oprea, Mihai-Alin Moldovan, Roxana Chirija, and Alexandra Bolos. 2021. Behavioural addictions and the role of dopamine.Bulletin of Integrative Psychiatry 27, 4 (2021), 63–70.
[60]
European Parliament and the Council. Emendaments, 6 March 2024. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828, (Artificial Intelligence Act).
[61]
Marieke MM Peeters, Jurriaan van Diggelen, Karel Van Den Bosch, Adelbert Bronkhorst, Mark A Neerincx, Jan Maarten Schraagen, and Stephan Raaijmakers. 2021. Hybrid collective intelligence in a human–AI society. AI & society 36 (2021), 217–238.
[62]
Danielle Petherbridge. 2016. What’s critical about vulnerability? Rethinking interdependence, recognition, and power. Hypatia 31, 3 (2016), 589–604.
[63]
Michael Pflanzer, Veljko Dubljević, William A Bauer, Darby Orcutt, George List, and Munindar P Singh. 2023. Embedding AI in society: ethics, policy, governance, and impacts. AI & SOCIETY 38, 4 (2023), 1267–1271.
[64]
Elena Pilipets. 2019. From Netflix streaming to Netflix and chill: The (dis) connected body of serial binge-viewer. Social Media+ Society 5, 4 (2019), 2056305119883426.
[65]
Bogdana Rakova and Roel Dobbe. 2023. Algorithms as social-ecological-technological systems: an environmental justice lens on algorithmic audits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05733 (2023).
[66]
Carlotta Rigotti. 2020. Sex Robots through Feminist Lenses. Filosofia 65 (2020), 17–34.
[67]
Eduardo B Sandoval. 2019. Addiction to social robots: A research proposal. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 526–527.
[68]
Howard J Shaffer, Heather M Gray, Sarah E Nelson, and Debi A LaPlante. 2020. Technology, the Internet, and Gambling. The Oxford Handbook of Digital Technologies and Mental Health (2020), 224.
[69]
Scott A Shamp. 1991. Mechanomorphism in perception of computer communication partners. Computers in Human Behavior 7, 3 (1991), 147–161.
[70]
Jaeeun Shim and Ronald C Arkin. 2013. A taxonomy of robot deception and its benefits in HRI. In 2013 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. IEEE, 2328–2335.
[71]
Peter Smetaniuk 2014. A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and prediction of problematic cell phone use. Journal of behavioral addictions 3, 1 (2014), 41–53.
[72]
Tibor Solymosi. 2017. Dewey on the brain: Dopamine, digital devices, and democracy. contemporary pragmatism 14, 1 (2017), 5–34.
[73]
Steve Sussman and Meghan B Moran. 2013. Hidden addiction: television. Journal of behavioral addictions 2, 3 (2013), 125–132.
[74]
Ekaterina Svetlova. 2022. AI meets narratives: the state and future of research on expectation formation in economics and sociology. Socio-Economic Review 20, 2 (2022), 841–861.
[75]
Michael Tomasello, Alicia P Melis, Claudio Tennie, Emily Wyman, and Esther Herrmann. 2012. Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current anthropology 53, 6 (2012), 673–692.
[76]
Sherry Turkle. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books. 1–384 pages.
[77]
Shannon Vallor. 2022. The AI mirror: Reclaiming our humanity in an age of machine thinking. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 6–6.
[78]
Paul AM Van Lange and Daniel Balliet. 2015. Interdependence theory. (2015).
[79]
Francis Ward, Francesca Toni, Francesco Belardinelli, and Tom Everitt. 2024. Honesty is the best policy: defining and mitigating AI deception. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
[80]
R Stephen Warner. 1985. Sociological theory and history of sociology: Autonomy and interdependence. Sociological Theory 3, 1 (1985), 20–23.
[81]
Aviv Malkiel Weinstein. 2010. Computer and video game addiction—a comparison between game users and non-game users. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse 36, 5 (2010), 268–276.
[82]
Jess Whittlestone and Sam Clarke. 2022. AI challenges for society and ethics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11068 (2022).
[83]
Lexo Zardiashvili and Eduard Fosch-Villaronga. 2020. “Oh, dignity too?” said the robot: human dignity as the basis for the governance of robotics. Minds and Machines 30, 1 (2020), 121–143.
[84]
Karolina Zawieska. 2020. Disengagement with ethics in robotics as a tacit form of dehumanisation. AI & SOCIETY 35, 4 (2020), 869–883.
[85]
Jixuan Zhi, Lap-Fai Yu, and Jyh-Ming Lien. 2021. Designing human-robot coexistence space. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 4 (2021), 7161–7168.
Index Terms
- Human-Agent Interaction and Human Dependency: Possible New Approaches for Old Challenges
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Voice in Human–Agent Interaction: A Survey
Social robots, conversational agents, voice assistants, and other embodied AI are increasingly a feature of everyday life. What connects these various types of intelligent agents is their ability to interact with people through voice. Voice is becoming ...
The effects of human personality on human-agent interactions
AAMAS '13: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systemsCurrently more and more agents are involved in human routine activities and a mixed human-agent society is thus formed by the humans and the agents involved. The relationship between humans and agents in this mixed society is subtle and it is vital to ...
Active adaptation in human-agent collaborative interaction
When a human user interacts with an adaptive agent to achieve human-agent collaboration, active adaptation is considered to be one of the critical characteristics of the agent. In order to investigate the principal features of active adaptation, we ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2024
502 pages
ISBN:9798400711787
DOI:10.1145/3687272
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 24 November 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
HAI '24
Sponsor:
HAI '24: International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction
November 24 - 27, 2024
Swansea, United Kingdom
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 121 of 404 submissions, 30%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 130Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)130
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)69
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in