Cited by 38

Apply rich psychological terms in AI with care

Shevlin, Henry, Halina, Marta·2019·Nature Machine Intelligence

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 · 10.1038/s42256-019-0039-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Many psychological concepts are normatively laden and can foster mismatches in expectations between AI experts and the public regarding machine capabilities.

    “Moreover, many psychological concepts are normatively laden and can foster mismatches in expectations between AI experts and the public regarding machine capabilities (Shevlin and Halina, 2019).”

    From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Shevlin and Halina, 2019

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Racanière, S. et al. Imagination-augmented agents for deep reinforcement learning in Advances in neural information processing systems (2017), 5690-5701.
  2. Rabinowitz, N. C. et al. Machine theory of mind. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07740 (2018). · arXiv
  3. Shylaja, K., Vijayakumar, M., Prasad, E. V. & Davis, D. N. Artificial Minds with Consciousness and Common sense Aspects. International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems (IJATS) 9, 20-42 (2017).
  4. Lurz, R. W. Mindreading animals: the debate over what animals know about other minds (MIT press, 2011).
  5. Winfield, A. F. T. Experiments in Artificial Theory of Mind: from safety to story-telling. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5, 75 (2018).
  6. Selbst, A. D. & Barocas, S. The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham L. Rev. 87, 1085 (2018).
  7. Hare, R. M. The language of morals 77 (Oxford University Press, 1952).
  8. Kulkarni, T. D., Narasimhan, K., Saeedi, A. & Tenenbaum, J. Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation in Advances in neural information processing systems (2016), 3675-3683.
  9. Elsayed, G. et al. Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humans in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2018), 3914-3924.
  10. Rajpurkar, P. et al. Chexnet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225 (2017). · arXiv
  11. Ostojić, L., Shaw, R. C., Cheke, L. G. & Clayton, N. S. Evidence suggesting that desire-state attribution may govern food sharing in Eurasian jays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 4123-4128 (2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shevlin, H., & Halina, M.
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
165-167
ISSN
2522-5839
Cited by
38
References
1
Language
en

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