CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reframing Deception for Human-Centered AI

Umbrello, Steven, Natale, Simone·2024·International Journal of Social Robotics
DOI 10.1007/s12369-024-01184-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12369-024-01184-4

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Baker-Brunnbauer J (2021) TAII framework for trustworthy AI systems. ROBONOMICS J Automat Economy. https://journal.robonomics.science/index.php/rj/article/view/17
  2. Bench-Capon TJ (2020) Ethical approaches and autonomous systems. Artif Intell 281:103239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103239 · DOI
  3. Billig M (1995) Banal nationalism. Sage, London
  4. Burton S, Habli I, Lawton T, McDermid J, Morgan P, Porter Z (2020) Mind the gaps: assuring the safety of autonomous systems from an engineering, ethical, and legal perspective. Artif Intell 279:103201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.103201 · DOI
  5. Calvo RA, Peters D, Vold K, Ryan RM (2020) Supporting human autonomy in AI systems: a framework for ethical enquiry. In: Ethics of digital well-being (pp 31–54). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50585-1_2 · DOI
  6. Castelfranchi C, Tan Y (2001) Trust and deception in virtual societies. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3614-5 · DOI
  7. Caudwell C, Lacey C (2019) What do home robots want? The ambivalent power of cuteness in robotic relationships. Convergence 41(8):1176–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856519837792 · DOI
  8. Chakraborti T, Kambhampati S (2018) Algorithms for the greater good! on mental modeling and acceptable symbiosis in human-AI collaboration. arXiv:1801.09854 · arXiv
  9. Chun WHK (2004) On software, or the persistence of visual knowledge. Grey Room 18:26–51. · DOI
  10. Coeckelbergh M (2018) How to describe and evaluate “deception” phenomena: recasting the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of ICTs in terms of magic and performance and taking a relational and narrative turn. Ethics Inf Technol 20(2):71–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9441-5 · DOI
  11. Danaher J (2020) Robot betrayal: a guide to the ethics of robotic deception. Ethics Inf Technol 22(2):117–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3 · DOI
  12. Dazeley R, Vamplew P, Foale C, Young C, Aryal S, Cruz F (2021) Levels of explainable artificial intelligence for human-aligned conversational explanations. Artif Intell 299:103525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103525 · DOI
  13. de Graaf MMA, Allouch SB (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  14. DePaulo BM, Kirkendol SE, Kashy DA, Wyer MM, Epstein JA (1996) Lying in everyday life. J Personal Soc Psychol 70(5):979–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979 · DOI
  15. Donath J (2018) The robot dog fetches for whom? In: Papacharissi Z (ed) A networked self and human augmentics, artificial intelligence, sentience. Routledge, London, pp 10–24 · DOI
  16. Emslie K (2024) LLM hallucinations: a bug or a feature? Communications of the ACM. Retrieved 11 June 2024, from https://cacm.acm.org/news/llm-hallucinations-a-bug-or-a-feature/
  17. European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2759/346720 · DOI
  18. Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington · DOI · Paper page
  19. Gehl RW, Bakardjieva M (2016) Socialbots and their friends: digital media and the automation of sociality. Routledge, London · DOI
  20. Guzman AL (2015) Imagining the voice in the machine: the ontology of digital social agents. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago
  21. Guzman AL, Lewis SC (2019) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media Soc 22(1): 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691 · DOI
  22. Hakim FZM, Indrayani LM, Amalia RM (2019) A dialogic analysis of compliment strategies employed by replika chatbot. Adv Soc Sci Educ Hum Res 279:266–271. https://doi.org/10.2991/icalc-18.2019.38 · DOI
  23. Helberger N, Karppinen K, D’acunto L (2018) Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Inf Commun Soc 21(2):191–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900 · DOI
  24. Henrickson L (2021) Reading computer-generated texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  25. Herzfeld N (2023) Is your computer lying? AI and deception. Sophia, 1–14. · DOI
  26. Hoffman D (2019) The case against reality: why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. Norton & Company, New York
  27. Kircher K, Larsson A, Hultgren JA (2013) Tactical driving behavior with different levels of automation. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 15(1):158–167. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2013.2277725 · DOI
  28. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  29. Laurel B (1991) Computers as Theatre. Addison-Wesley, Boston
  30. Lei X, Tu GH, Liu AX, Ali K, Li CY, Xie T (2017) The insecurity of home digital voice assistants-Amazon Alexa as a case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.03327 · arXiv
  31. Leveson N (2011) Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. MIT Press, Cambridge
  32. Masters P, Smith W, Sonenberg L, Kirley M (2021) Characterising deception in AI: a survey. In: Sarkadi S, Wright B, Masters P, McBurney P (eds) Deceptive AI. DeceptECAI DeceptAI 2020 2021. Commun Comput Inf Sci, vol 1296. Cham, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91779-1_1 · DOI
  33. Mclean G, Osei-frimpong K (2019) Hey Alexa … examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Comput Hum Behav 99:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Milano S, Taddeo M, Floridi L (2020) Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI Soc 35(4):957–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00950-y · DOI · Paper page
  35. Natale S (2021) Deceitful media: artificial intelligence and social life after the turing test. Oxford University Press, New York · DOI · Paper page
  36. Natale S (2023) AI, human-machine communication and deception. In: Guzman A, McEwen R, Jones S (eds) The Sage Handbook of Human-Machine Communication. Sage, London, pp 401–408 · DOI
  37. O’Leary DE (2019) Google’s duplex: pretending to be human. Intell Syst Account Finance Manag 26(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1443 · DOI
  38. Olney J (1972) Metaphors of self: the meaning of autobiography. Princeton University Press, Princeton
  39. Sarkadi S, Wright B, Masters P, McBurney P (2021) Deceptive AI. Springer, Cham · DOI
  40. Sætra HS (2021) Social robot deception and the culture of trust. Paladyn J Behav Robot 12(1):276–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0021 · DOI
  41. Schiller A, McMahon J (2019) Alexa, alert me when the revolution comes: gender, affect, and labor in the age of home-based artificial intelligence. New Polit Sci 41(2):173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2019.1595288 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Schoenhofer SO, van Wynsberghe A, Boykin A (2019) Engaging robots as nursing partners in caring: nursing as caring meets care-centered value-sensitive design. Int J Human Car 23(2): 157–167. https://doi.org/10.20467/1091-5710.23.2.157 · DOI
  43. Shneiderman B (1986) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston
  44. Shneiderman B (2022) Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press, Oxford · DOI
  45. Shneiderman B, Plaisant C, Cohen M, Jacobs S, Elmqvist N (2016) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction, 6th edn. Pearson, Boston
  46. Schuetzler RM, Grimes GM, Giboney JS (2019) The effect of conversational agent skill on user behavior during deception. Comput Hum Behav 97:250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.033 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Seppelt B, Reimer B, Angell L, Seaman S (2017) Considering the human across levels of automation: Implications for reliance. In: Proceedings of the ninth international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design (pp 228–234). https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1640 · DOI
  48. Smits M, van Goor H, Kallewaard JW, Verbeek PP, Ludden GD (2022) Evaluating value mediation in patients with chronic low-back pain using virtual reality: contributions for empirical research in value sensitive design. Health Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-022-00671-w · DOI
  49. Sugianto N, Tjondronegoro D, Stockdale R, Yuwono EI (2021) Privacy-preserving AI-enabled video surveillance for social distancing: responsible design and deployment for public spaces. Inf Technol People Vol Ahead-of-print No Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2020-0534 · DOI
  50. Sweeney M (2017) The Ms. Dewey “experience”: technoculture, gender, and race. In: Daniels J, Gregory K, McMillan Cottom T (eds) Digital sociologies, pp 401–420. Bristol, Policy Press · DOI
  51. Tarakji KG, Zaidi AM, Zweibel SL, Varma N, Sears SF, Allred J et al (2021) Performance of first pacemaker to use smart device app for remote monitoring. Heart Rhythm O2 2(5): 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2021.07.008 · DOI
  52. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, Cambridge
  53. Thimbleby H (2020) Fix IT: stories from healthcare IT. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  54. Umbrello S (2021) Coupling levels of abstraction in understanding meaningful human control of autonomous weapons: a two-tiered approach. Ethics Inf Technol 23(3):455–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09588-w · DOI
  55. Umbrello S (2021) Towards a Value Sensitive Design Framework for Attaining Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Weapons Systems (PhD). Northwestern Italian Philosophy Consortium (Consorzio FINO). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20431.41128 · DOI
  56. Umbrello S (2022) The role of engineers in harmonising human values for AI systems design. J Respons Technol 10:100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2022.100031 · DOI
  57. Umbrello S, Capasso M, Balistreri M, Pirni A, Merenda F (2021) Value sensitive design to achieve the UN SDGs with AI: a case of elderly care robots. Mind Mach 31(3):395–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09561-y · DOI
  58. Umbrello S, Van de Poel I (2021) Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics 1(3):283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Umbrello S, Yampolskiy RV (2022) Designing AI for explainability and verifiability: a value sensitive design approach to avoid artificial stupidity in autonomous vehicles. Int J Soc Robot 14(2), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00790-w · DOI
  60. Umbres R (2017) Deception as exploitative social agency. In: Enfield NJ, Kockelman P (eds) Distributed agency (pp 243–251). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0025 · DOI
  61. United Nations. General Assembly (1949) Universal declaration of human rights (Vol. 3381). Department of State, United States of America
  62. Van den Hoven J, Lokhorst GJ, Van de Poel I (2012) Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9277-z · DOI · Paper page
  63. van de Poel I (2020) Embedding values in artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Mind Mach 30(3):385–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Wenskovitch J, Zhou M, Collins C, Chang R, Dowling M, Endert A, Xu K (2020) Putting the “i” in interaction: interactive interfaces personalized to individuals. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 40(3):73–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2020.2982465 · DOI
  65. Wilks Y (2019) Artificial intelligence: modern magic or dangerous future? Icon Books, London
  66. Woods HS (2018) Asking more of Siri and Alexa: feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Crit Stud Media Commun 35(4):334–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2018.1488082 · DOI
  67. Wrathall MA (2010) Heidegger and unconcealment: truth, language, and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  68. Young L (2019) ‘I’m a cloud of infinitesimal data computation’ when machines talk back: an interview with Deborah Harrison, one of the personality designers of Microsoft’s Cortana AI. Archit Des 89(1):112–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2398 · DOI
  69. Zhan X, Xu Y, Sarkadi S (2023) Deceptive AI ecosystems: the case of ChatGPT. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on conversational user interfaces, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571884.3603754 · DOI
  70. Zicari RV, Brodersen J, Brusseau J, Düdder B, Eichhorn T, Ivanov T et al (2021) Z-Inspection®: a process to assess trustworthy AI. IEEE Trans Technol Soc 2(2):83–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3066209 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Zicari RV, Ahmed S, Amann J, Braun SA, Brodersen J, Bruneault F et al (2021) Co-design of a trustworthy AI system in healthcare: deep learning based skin lesion classifier. Front Hum Dyn. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2021.688152 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Umbrello, S., & Natale, S.
ORCID
Umbrello, Steven
Venue
International Journal of Social Robotics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-10-25
Volume
16
Issue
11-12
Pages
2223-2241
ISSN
  • 1875-4791
  • 1875-4805
DOI
10.1007/s12369-024-01184-4
Cited by
23
References
16
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review