CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Ethics and Social Impacts of AISocial Robot Interaction and HRILiterary and Philosophical Studies

Perceptions of Sentient AI and Other Digital Minds: Evidence from the AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey

Open access
Anthis, Jacy Reese, Pauketat, Janet V.T., Ladak, Ali, Manoli, Aikaterina·2025·Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3706598.3713329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Humans now interact with a variety of digital minds, AI systems that appear to have mental faculties such as reasoning, emotion, and agency, and public figures are discussing the possibility of sentient AI. We present initial results from 2021 and 2023 for the nationally representative AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey (N = 3,500). Mind perception and moral concern for AI welfare were surprisingly high and significantly increased: in 2023, one in five U.S. adults believed some AI systems are currently sentient, and 38% supported legal rights for sentient AI. People became more opposed to building digital minds: in 2023, 63% supported banning smarter-than-human AI, and 69% supported banning sentient AI. The median 2023 forecast was that sentient AI would arrive in just five years. The development of safe and beneficial AI requires not just technical study but understanding the complex ways in which humans perceive and coexist with digital minds.

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 · 10.1145/3706598.3713329

Cites

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?

  • In a large-scale 2023 survey, approximately 20% of respondents (adults in the US) declared that sentient AI systems currently exist.

    “In a large-scale 2023 survey, approximately 20% of respondents (adults in the US) declared that sentient AI systems currently exist (data collection from April to July 2023, n = 2268; Anthis et al., 2025).”

    From There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Anthis et al., 2025

    Section 4.4 (p. 11) reports that 20.0% of Main 2023 participants said AI is already sentient, and Section 3.1 (p. 5) identifies the samples as U.S. adults. The sample-size and date parenthetical conflates two waves: the methodology (p. 2) gives Main 2023 as n = 1,169, collected April–May, while the additional n = 1,099 was a supplemental wave collected May–July. The paper does not attribute the 20.0% result to all 2,268 respondents. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Anthis et al. (2025) found that 38% believed AI sentience was possible, 24% believed it was impossible, and 38% were uncertain.

    “Similarly, Anthis et al. (2025) found that 38% believed that AI sentience was possible, 24% believed it was impossible, and 38% were uncertain.”

    From Futures with Digital Minds: Expert Forecasts in 2025 (2025) · cites this paper as Anthis et al. (2025)

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 157 · Cited by 24

Research works printed but not linked: 129

  1. [1][1] Gavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Tanvi Dinkar, Verena Rieser, and Zeerak Talat. 2023. Mirages. On Anthropomorphism in Dialogue Systems. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 4776-4790. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/ 2023.emnlp-main.290 - · DOI
  2. [3][3] Douglas G Altman and Patrick Royston. 2006. The Cost of Dichotomising Continuous Variables. BMJ 332, 7549 (May 2006), 1080.1. https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmj.332.7549.1080 -
  3. [4][4] Gado Alzouma. 2005. Myths of Digital Technology in Africa: Leapfrogging Development? Global Media and Communication 1, 3 (December 2005), 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766505058128 - · DOI
  4. [6][6] Jacy Reese Anthis. 2022. Consciousness Semanticism: A Precise Eliminativist Theory of Consciousness. In Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures 2021 , Valentin V. Klimov and David J. Kelley (Eds.). Vol. 1032. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96993-6\_3 Series Title: Studies in Computational Intelligence. - · DOI
  5. [5][5] Tawfiq Ammari, Jofish Kaye, Janice Y. Tsai, and Frank Bentley. 2019. Music, Search, and IoT: How People (Really) Use Voice Assistants. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 26, 3 (June 2019), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3311956 -
  6. [7][7] Jacy Reese Anthis and Eze Paez. 2021. Moral Circle Expansion: A Promising Strategy to Impact the Far Future. Futures 130 (June 2021), 102756. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756 - · DOI
  7. [9][9] Grace Augustine, Sara Soderstrom, Daniel Milner, and Klaus Weber. 2019. Constructing a Distant Future: Imaginaries in Geoengineering. Academy of Management Journal 62, 6 (December 2019), 1930-1960. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2018.0059 -
  8. [8][8] Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 4 (October 1992), 596-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.63.4.596 - · DOI
  9. [10][10] Jaime Banks and Autumn Edwards. 2019. A Common Social Distance Scale for Robots and Humans. In 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) . IEEE, New Delhi, India, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956316 - · DOI
  10. [11][11] Pablo Barberá, Andreu Casas, Jonathan Nagler, Patrick J. Egan, Richard Bonneau, John T. Jost, and Joshua A. Tucker. 2019. Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data. American Political Science Review 113, 4 (November 2019), 883-901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000352 - · DOI
  11. [15][15] Nick Bostrom. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (first edition ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford. -
  12. [14][14] Michael Ian Borer. 2010. From Collective Memory to Collective Imagination: Time, Place, and Urban Redevelopment. Symbolic Interaction 33, 1 (January 2010), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2010.33.1.96 - · DOI
  13. [16][16] Emma Boulstridge and Marylyn Carrigan. 2000. Do Consumers Really Care about Corporate Responsibility? Highlighting the Attitude-Behaviour Gap. Journal of Communication Management 4, 4 (January 2000), 355-368. https: //doi.org/10.1108/eb023532 - · DOI · Paper page
  14. [18][18] Casey Breen, Cormac Herley, and Elissa M. Redmiles. 2022. A Large-Scale Measurement of Cybercrime Against Individuals. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1-41. https://doi. org/10.1145/3491102.3517613 - · DOI
  15. [17][17] Sarah Brayne. 2021. Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing . Oxford University Press, New York, NY. -
  16. [21][21] Paul Burstein. 2003. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56, 1 (March 2003), 29-40. https: //doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103 - · DOI
  17. [23][23] Noah Castelo and Miklos Sarvary. 2022. Cross-Cultural Differences in Comfort with Humanlike Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 14, 8 (October 2022), 1865-1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00920-y - · DOI
  18. [25][25] Alan Chan, Maxime Riché, and Jesse Clifton. 2023. Towards the Scalable Evaluation of Cooperativeness in Language Models. arXiv:2303.13360 [cs] - · arXiv
  19. [27][27] Myra Cheng, Alicia DeVrio, Lisa Egede, Su Lin Blodgett, and Alexandra Olteanu. 2024. "I Am the One and Only, Your Cyber BFF": Understanding the Impact of GenAI Requires Understanding the Impact of Anthropomorphic AI. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08526 arXiv:2410.08526 - · DOI
  20. [26][26] Kirsten Chapman, Melanie Klimes, Braden Wellman, Garrett Smith, Mainack Mondal, Staci Smith, Yunan Chen, Haijing Hao, and Xinru Page. 2022. A Privacy Paradox? Impact of Privacy Concerns on Willingness to Disclose COVID19 Health Status in the United States. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . ACM, Virtual Event Taiwan, 159-162. https://doi.org/10.1145/3500868.3559471 - · DOI
  21. [28][28] Myra Cheng, Kristina Gligoric, Tiziano Piccardi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2024. AnthroScore: A Computational Linguistic Measure of Anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , Yvette Graham and Matthew Purver (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, St. Julian's, Malta, 807-825. -
  22. [29][29] Hyojin Chin, Hyeonho Song, Gumhee Baek, Mingi Shin, Chani Jung, Meeyoung Cha, Junghoi Choi, and Chiyoung Cha. 2023. The Potential of Chatbots for Emotional Support and Promoting Mental Well-Being in Different Cultures: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 (October 2023), e51712. https://doi.org/10.2196/51712 - · DOI
  23. [30][30] Kyong Ah Cho and Yon Hee Seo. 2024. Dual Mediating Effects of Anxiety to Use and Acceptance Attitude of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Relationship between Nursing Students' Perception of and Intention to Use Them: A Descriptive Study. BMC Nursing 23, 1 (March 2024), 212. https: //doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01887-z - · DOI
  24. [31][31] Michelle Cohn, Mahima Pushkarna, Gbolahan O. Olanubi, Joseph M. Moran, Daniel Padgett, Zion Mengesha, and Courtney Heldreth. 2024. Believing Anthropomorphism: Examining the Role of Anthropomorphic Cues on Trust in Large Language Models. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-15. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650818 - · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35][35] Stefano DellaVigna, Devin Pope, and Eva Vivalt. 2019. Predict Science to Improve Science. Science 366, 6464 (October 2019), 428-429. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aaz1704 -
  26. [36][36] W. Edwards Deming and Frederick F. Stephan. 1940. On a Least Squares Adjustment of a Sampled Frequency Table When the Expected Marginal Totals Are Known. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11, 4 (1940), 427-444. jstor:2235722 -
  27. [38][38] Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts ; London. -
  28. [37][37] Leonard Dung. 2024. The argument for near-term human disempowerment through AI. AI & SOCIETY (April 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-02401930-2 - · DOI
  29. [40][40] Upol Ehsan, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury, and Mark O. Riedl. 2023. Charting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579467 - · DOI
  30. [44][44] Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, and Erik P. M. Vermeulen. 2016/2017. Regulation Tomorrow: What Happens When Technology Is Faster than the Law. American University Business Law Review 6 (2016/2017), 561. -
  31. [45][45] Ines Fernandez, Nicoleta Kyosovska, Jay Luong, and Gabriel Mukobi. 2024. AI Consciousness and Public Perceptions: Four Futures. http://arxiv.org/abs/2408. 04771 arXiv:2408.04771 [cs]. - · arXiv
  32. [47][47] Nathan G. Freier. 2007. Children Distinguish Conventional from Moral Violations in Interactions with a Personified Agent. In CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose CA USA, 2195-2200. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1240979 - · DOI
  33. [46][46] Marlena R. Fraune, Benjamin C. Oisted, Catherine E. Sembrowski, Kathryn A. Gates, Margaret M. Krupp, and Selma Šabanović. 2020. Effects of RobotHuman versus Robot-Robot Behavior and Entitativity on Anthropomorphism and Willingness to Interact. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (April 2020), 106220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106220 - · DOI
  34. [48][48] Nathan G. Freier. 2008. Children Attribute Moral Standing to a Personified Agent. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Florence Italy, 343-352. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357113 - · DOI
  35. [50][50] Batya Friedman. 1995. 'It's the Computer's Fault': Reasoning about Computers as Moral Agents. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '95 . ACM Press, Denver, Colorado, United States, 226-227. https: //doi.org/10.1145/223355.223537 - · DOI
  36. [49][49] Nathan G. Freier, Elia J. Nelson, Amanda Rotondo, and Wai Kay Kong. 2009. The Moral Accountability of a Personified Agent: Young Adults' Conceptions. In CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Boston MA USA, 4609-4614. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520708 - · DOI
  37. [54][54] Jean-Christophe Giger, Nuno Piçarra, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Raquel Oliveira, and Patrícia Arriaga. 2019. Humanization of Robots: Is It Really Such a Good Idea? Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 1, 2 (April 2019), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.147 - · DOI
  38. [53][53] Robert M. Geraci. 2006. Spiritual Robots: Religion and Our Scientific View of the Natural World. Theology and Science 4, 3 (November 2006), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700600952993 - · DOI
  39. [55][55] Erving Goffman. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . Harvard University Press, Cambridge. ZSCC: 0033320. -
  40. [57][57] Katja Grace, Harlan Stewart, Julia Fabienne Sandkühler, Stephen Thomas, Ben Weinstein-Raun, and Jan Brauner. 2024. Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02843 arXiv:2401.02843 [cs]. - · arXiv
  41. [62][62] Naman Gupta, Sanchari Das, Kate Walsh, and Rahul Chatterjee. 2024. A Critical Analysis of the Prevalence of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in US College Students. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3613905.3652036 -
  42. [66][66] Jamie Harris and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2021. The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 27, 4 (August 2021), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00331-8 - · DOI
  43. [65][65] Maximilian Häring, Eva Gerlitz, Matthew Smith, and Christian Tiefenau. 2023. Less About Privacy: Revisiting a Survey about the German COVID-19 Contact Tracing App. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3544548.3581537 -
  44. [67][67] Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. 1944. An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 2 (April 1944), 243. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1416950 jstor:1416950 - · DOI · Paper page
  45. [69][69] Evelien Heyselaar. 2023. The CASA Theory No Longer Applies to Desktop Computers. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (November 2023), 19693. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-023-46527-9 -
  46. [68][68] Franziska Herbert, Steffen Becker, Leonie Schaewitz, Jonas Hielscher, Marvin Kowalewski, Angela Sasse, Yasemin Acar, and Markus Dürmuth. 2023. A World Full of Privacy and Security (Mis)Conceptions? Findings of a Representative Survey in 12 Countries. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-23. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3544548.3581410 - · DOI
  47. [70][70] Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57, 3 (May 2015), 407-434. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570 - · DOI · Paper page
  48. [72][72] Jess Hohenstein, Rene F. Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F. Jung. 2023. Artificial Intelligence in Communication Impacts Language and Social Relationships. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (April 2023), 5487. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-023-30938-9 -
  49. [71][71] Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. 2020. AI as a Moral Crumple Zone: The Effects of AI-mediated Communication on Attribution and Trust. Computers in Human Behavior 106 (May 2020), 106190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106190 - · DOI · Paper page
  50. [73][73] Yoyo Tsung-Yu Hou, Wen-Ying Lee, and Malte Jung. 2023. 'Should I Follow the Human, or Follow the Robot?' - Robots in Power Can Have More Influence Than Humans on Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-13. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581066 - · DOI
  51. [75][75] Siying Hu, Hen Chen Yen, Ziwei Yu, Mingjian Zhao, Katie Seaborn, and Can Liu. 2023. Wizundry: A Cooperative Wizard of Oz Platform for Simulating Future Speech-based Interfaces with Multiple Wizards. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3579591 - · DOI
  52. [77][77] Saffron Huang, Divya Siddarth, Liane Lovitt, Thomas I. Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli. 2024. Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . ACM, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, 1395-1417. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658979 - · DOI
  53. [81][81] Timothy P. Johnson (Ed.). 2018. Advances in Comparative Survey Methods: Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (3MC) . John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ. -
  54. [80][80] Ryan Blake Jackson and Tom Williams. 2019. On Perceived Social and Moral Agency in Natural Language Capable Robots. In 2019 HRI Workshop on the Dark Side of Human-Robot Interaction . ACM, Daegu, South Korea, 401-410. -
  55. [82][82] Peter H. Kahn, Batya Friedman, Deanne R. Perez-Granados, and Nathan G. Freier. 2004. Robotic Pets in the Lives of Preschool Children. In CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Vienna Austria, 14491452. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986087 - · DOI
  56. [84][84] Jerry Kaplan. 2016. Defining Artificial Intelligence . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190602383.003.0001 - · DOI
  57. [85][85] Elise Karinshak, Sunny Xun Liu, Joon Sung Park, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2023. Working With AI to Persuade: Examining a Large Language Model's Ability to Generate Pro-Vaccination Messages. Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3579592 -
  58. [87][87] Sage Kelly, Sherrie-Anne Kaye, and Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios. 2023. What Factors Contribute to the Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence? A Systematic Review. Telematics and Informatics 77 (February 2023), 101925. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925 - · DOI
  59. [86][86] Atoosa Kasirzadeh. 2025. Two Types of AI Existential Risk: Decisive and Accumulative. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.07836 arXiv:2401.07836 [cs]. - · DOI
  60. [88][88] Jihyun Kim, Kelly Merrill Jr., Kun Xu, and Stephanie Kelly. 2022. Perceived Credibility of an AI Instructor in Online Education: The Role of Social Presence and Voice Features. Computers in Human Behavior 136 (November 2022), 107383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107383 - · DOI
  61. [90][90] Marcus Kneer, David Colaço, Joshua Alexander, and Edouard Machery. 2021. On Second Thought: Reflections on the Reflection Defense. In Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy . -
  62. [89][89] Taenyun Kim, Maria D. Molina, Minjin (Mj) Rheu, Emily S. Zhan, and Wei Peng. 2023. One AI Does Not Fit All: A Cluster Analysis of the Laypeople's Perception of AI Roles. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3544548.3581340 -
  63. [91][91] Takanori Komatsu. 2016. How Do People Judge Moral Wrongness in a Robot and in Its Designers and Owners Regarding the Consequences of the Robot's Behaviors?. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) . IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1168-1171. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745256 - · DOI
  64. [94][94] Jan Kulveit, Raymond Douglas, Nora Ammann, Deger Turan, David Krueger, and David Duvenaud. 2025. Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16946 arXiv:2501.16946 [cs]. - · DOI
  65. [96][96] Ali Ladak, Jamie Harris, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2023. Features of Moral Consideration for Artificial Entities: A Conjoint Experiment . Preprint. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/235vp - · DOI
  66. [95][95] Ali Ladak. 2023. What Would Qualify an Artificial Intelligence for Moral Standing? AI and Ethics (January 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-02300260-1 - · DOI
  67. [97][97] Ali Ladak, Jamie Harris, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2024. Which Artificial Intelligences Do People Care About Most? A Conjoint Experiment on Moral Consideration. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3613904.3642403 -
  68. [99][99] Simon M. Laham. 2009. Expanding the Moral Circle: Inclusion and Exclusion Mindsets and the Circle of Moral Regard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 1 (January 2009), 250-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08. 012 - · DOI
  69. [102][102] Minha Lee, Peter Ruijten, Lily Frank, Yvonne De Kort, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2021. People May Punish, But Not Blame Robots. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445284 - · DOI
  70. [101][101] Sarah Lebovitz, Natalia Levina, and Hila Lifshitz-Assa. 2021. Is AI Ground Truth Really True? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts' Know-What. MIS Quarterly 45, 3 (September 2021), 1501-1526. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16564 - · DOI · Paper page
  71. [103][103] Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, and Yun Huang. 2020. Designing a Chatbot as a Mediator for Promoting Deep Self-Disclosure to a Real Mental Health Professional. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392836 - · DOI
  72. [105][105] Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, and Meeyoung Cha. 2021. Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445260 - · DOI
  73. [104][104] 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 (May 2021), 106680. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2021.106680 -
  74. [106][106] Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, and Meeyoung Cha. 2023. Blaming Humans and Machines: What Shapes People's Reactions to Algorithmic Harm. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580953 - · DOI
  75. [108][108] Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. "Like Having a Really Bad PA": The Gulf between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose California USA, 5286-5297. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036. 2858288 - · DOI
  76. [107][107] Gabriel Lima, Changyeon Kim, Seungho Ryu, Chihyung Jeon, and Meeyoung Cha. 2020. Collecting the Public Perception of AI and Robot Rights. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (October 2020), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415206 - · DOI · Paper page
  77. [109][109] Takuya Maeda and Anabel Quan-Haase. 2024. When Human-AI Interactions Become Parasocial: Agency and Anthropomorphism in Affective Design. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . ACM, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, 1068-1077. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658956 - · DOI · Paper page
  78. [111][111] Bertram F. Malle, Stuti Thapa Magar, and Matthias Scheutz. 2019. AI in the Sky: How People Morally Evaluate Human and Machine Decisions in a Lethal Strike Dilemma. In Robotics and Well-Being , Maria Isabel Aldinhas Ferreira, João Silva Sequeira, Gurvinder Singh Virk, Mohammad Osman Tokhi, and Endre E. Kadar (Eds.). Vol. 95. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12524-0\_11 - · DOI
  79. [110][110] Bertram F Malle. 2019. How Many Dimensions of Mind Perception Really Are There?. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society . Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, Canada, 2268-2274. -
  80. [113][113] Bethanie Maples, Roy D. Pea, and David Markowitz. 2023. Learning from Intelligent Social Agents as Social and Intellectual Mirrors. In AI in Learning: Designing the Future , Hannele Niemi, Roy D. Pea, and Yu Lu (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03109687-7\_5 - · DOI
  81. [115][115] Thomas Metzinger. 2021. Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness 08, 01 (March 2021), 43-66. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S270507852150003X -
  82. [114][114] Daniel McDuff and Mary Czerwinski. 2018. Designing Emotionally Sentient Agents. Commun. ACM 61, 12 (November 2018), 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3186591 -
  83. [118][118] Swati Mishra and Jeffrey M. Rzeszotarski. 2021. Crowdsourcing and Evaluating Concept-driven Explanations of Machine Learning Models. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1-26. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3449213 - · DOI
  84. [117][117] Milagros Miceli and Julian Posada. 2022. The Data-Production Dispositif. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (November 2022), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555561 - · DOI
  85. [119][119] Meredith Ringel Morris, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Juho Kim, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. Forthcoming. Is Human-AI Interaction CSCW? CSCW'24Companion: Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Forthcoming). -
  86. [120][120] Sara Moussawi, Marios Koufaris, and Raquel Benbunan-Fich. 2021. How Perceptions of Intelligence and Anthropomorphism Affect Adoption of Personal Intelligent Agents. Electronic Markets 31, 2 (2021), 343-364. -
  87. [122][122] Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers Are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Celebrating Interdependence - CHI '94 . ACM Press, Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703 - · DOI · Paper page
  88. [124][124] Richard Ngo, Lawrence Chan, and Sören Mindermann. 2023. The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspective. arXiv:2209.00626 [cs] - · arXiv
  89. [125][125] Mai Nguyen, Lars-Erik Casper Ferm, Sara Quach, Nicolas Pontes, and Park Thaichon. 2023. Chatbots in Frontline Services and Customer Experience: An Anthropomorphism Perspective. Psychology & Marketing (August 2023), mar.21882. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21882 - · DOI · Paper page
  90. [126][126] Sarah Soyeon Oh, Kyoung-A Kim, Minsu Kim, Jaeuk Oh, Sang Hui Chu, and JiYeon Choi. 2021. Measurement of Digital Literacy Among Older Adults: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23, 2 (February 2021), e26145. https://doi.org/10.2196/26145 - · DOI
  91. [128][128] Sharon Oviatt. 2006. Human-Centered Design Meets Cognitive Load Theory: Designing Interfaces That Help People Think. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . ACM, Santa Barbara CA USA, 871-880. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180639.1180831 - · DOI
  92. [130][130] Janet V.T. Pauketat and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2022. Predicting the moral consideration of artificial intelligences. Computers in Human Behavior 136 (Nov. 2022), 107372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372 3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2023-06-28]. - · DOI · Paper page
  93. [129][129] Gain Park, Jiyun Chung, and Seyoung Lee. 2024. Human vs. Machine-like Representation in Chatbot Mental Health Counseling: The Serial Mediation of Psychological Distance and Trust on Compliance Intention. Current Psychology 43, 5 (February 2024), 4352-4363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04653-7 - · DOI
  94. [131][131] Janet V.T. Pauketat, Ali Ladak, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2025. Worldmaking for a future with sentient AI. British Journal of Social Psychology 64, 1 (2025), e12844. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12844 \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjso.12844. - · DOI
  95. [134][134] Matthew Wray Perry. 2024. Why Sentience Should Be the Only Basis of Moral Status. The Journal of Ethics (July 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-02409487-4 - · DOI
  96. [135][135] Séamus A. Power, Tania Zittoun, Sanne Akkerman, Brady Wagoner, Martina Cabra, Flora Cornish, Hana Hawlina, Brett Heasman, Kesi Mahendran, Charis Psaltis, Antti Rajala, Angela Veale, and Alex Gillespie. 2023. Social Psychology of and for World-Making. Personality and Social Psychology Review 27, 4 (November 2023), 378-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221145756 Publications ; Cambridge University Press, Stanford, Calif. : New York. - · DOI
  97. [141][141] Susanna Kim Ripken. 2009. Corporations Are People Too: A Multi-dimensional Approach to the Corporate Personhood Puzzle. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 15 (2009). -
  98. [140][140] Kathleen Richardson. 2016. Technological Animism: The Uncanny Personhood of Humanoid Machines. Social Analysis 60, 1 (January 2016). https://doi.org/10. 3167/sa.2016.600108 -
  99. [142][142] Jason Roy, Shane P. Singh, and Patrick Fournier. 2021. The Power of Polls?: A Cross-National Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Campaign Polls. Elements in Campaigns and Elections (September 2021). https://doi.org/10. 1017/9781108877428 -
  100. [143][143] Jason Roy, Shane P. Singh, Patrick Fournier, and Blake Andrew. 2015. An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Campaign Polls on Electoral Information Seeking. Electoral Studies 40 (December 2015), 146-157. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.electstud.2015.08.005 -
  101. [145][145] Osamu Sakura. 2022. Robot and Ukiyo-e: Implications to Cultural Varieties in Human-Robot Relationships. AI & SOCIETY 37, 4 (December 2022), 1563-1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01243-8 - · DOI
  102. [148][148] Mike Savage. 2024. In defence of sociological description: A 'world-making' perspective. The British Journal of Sociology 75, 3 (2024), 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13083 \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-4446.13083. - · DOI
  103. [150][150] Eric Schwitzgebel. 2023. AI Systems Must Not Confuse Users about Their Sentience or Moral Status. Patterns 4, 8 (August 2023), 100818. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100818 - · DOI · Paper page
  104. [149][149] Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context . Academic Press, New York. -
  105. [151][151] Eric Schwitzgebel and Mara Garza. 2015. A Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences: Defense of the Rights of Artificial Intelligences. Midwest Studies In Philosophy 39, 1 (September 2015), 98-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12032 - · DOI
  106. [153][153] Martin E. P. Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2000. Positive Psychology: An Introduction. American Psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 5-14. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 -
  107. [154][154] William Seymour and Max Van Kleek. 2020. Does Siri Have a Soul? Exploring Voice Assistants Through Shinto Design Fictions. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381809 - · DOI · Paper page
  108. [155][155] Ben Shneiderman, Catherine Plaisant, Maxine Cohen, Steven M. Jacobs, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2017. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective HumanComputer Interaction (sixth edition ed.). Pearson, Boston. -
  109. [157][157] J. P. Singh. 1999. Leapfrogging Development? The Political Economy of Telecommunications Restructuring . State University of New York Press, Albany. -
  110. [160][160] Patric R. Spence, Autumn Edwards, and Chad Edwards. 2018. Attitudes, Prior Interaction, and Petitioner Credibility Predict Support for Considering the Rights of Robots. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction . ACM, Chicago IL USA, 243-244. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3173386.3177071 - · DOI
  111. [162][162] Vasant Srinivasan and Leila Takayama. 2016. Help Me Please: Robot Politeness Strategies for Soliciting Help From Humans. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose California USA, 4945-4955. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858217 - · DOI
  112. [161][161] Steven J. Spencer, Christine Logel, and Paul G. Davies. 2016. Stereotype Threat. Annual Review of Psychology 67, 1 (January 2016), 415-437. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235 -
  113. [163][163] MeganStrait, Lara Vujovic, Victoria Floerke, Matthias Scheutz, and Heather Urry. 2015. Too Much Humanness for Human-Robot Interaction: Exposure to Highly Humanlike Robots Elicits Aversive Responding in Observers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 3593-3602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702415 - · DOI
  114. [164][164] Michael T. Stuart and Markus Kneer. 2021. Guilty Artificial Minds: Folk Attributions of Mens Rea and Culpability to Artificially Intelligent Agents. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (October 2021), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479507 - · DOI
  115. [166][166] Miriam E. Sweeney. 2016. The Ms. Dewey "Experience": Technoculture, Gender, and Race. In Digital Sociologies . Policy Press, 401-420. -
  116. [168][168] Jagadish Thaker, Xiaoquan Zhao, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2017. Media Use and Public Perceptions of Global Warming in India. Environmental Communication 11, 3 (May 2017), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1269824 - · DOI
  117. [169][169] Sam Thellman, Maartje De Graaf, and Tom Ziemke. 2022. Mental State Attribution to Robots: A Systematic Review of Conceptions, Methods, and Findings. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 11, 4 (December 2022), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526112 - · DOI
  118. [174][174] Kallie Tzelios, Lisa A. Williams, John Omerod, and Eliza Bliss-Moreau. 2022. Evidence of the Unidimensional Structure of Mind Perception. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (November 2022), 18978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23047-6 - · DOI
  119. [173][173] Suzanne Tolmeijer, Markus Christen, Serhiy Kandul, Markus Kneer, and Abraham Bernstein. 2022. Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1-17. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517732 - · DOI · Paper page
  120. [176][176] Xijing Wang and Eva G. Krumhuber. 2018. Mind Perception of Robots Varies With Their Economic Versus Social Function. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (July 2018), 1230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01230 - · DOI
  121. [178][178] Adam Waytz, Joy Heafner, and Nicholas Epley. 2014. The Mind in the Machine: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust in an Autonomous Vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 52 (May 2014), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jesp.2014.01.005 -
  122. [180][180] Blay Whitby. 2008. Sometimes It's Hard to Be a Robot: A Call for Action on the Ethics of Abusing Artificial Agents. Interacting with Computers 20, 3 (May 2008), 326-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.002 - · DOI
  123. [183][183] Xuhai Xu, Anna Yu, Tanya R. Jonker, Kashyap Todi, Feiyu Lu, Xun Qian, João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Tianyi Wang, Michelle Li, Aran Mun, TeYen Wu, Junxiao Shen, Ting Zhang, Narine Kokhlikyan, Fulton Wang, Paul Sorenson, Sophie Kim, and Hrvoje Benko. 2023. XAIR: A Framework of Explainable AI in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581500 - · DOI
  124. [182][182] Susan Wyche. 2022. Reimagining the Mobile Phone: Investigating Speculative Approaches to Design in Human-Computer Interaction for Development (HCI4D). Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (November 2022), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555648 - · DOI
  125. [184][184] Heather Hee Jin Yang, Nathanael Fast, Christian Hildebrand, Donna Hoffman, Jennifer Marie Logg, Heather Hee Jin Yang, and Michael Yeomans. 2020. Resisting Artificial Intelligence: When Do Decision-Makers Avoid or Use Algorithmic Input? Academy of Management Proceedings 2020, 1 (August 2020), 17721. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.17721symposium - · DOI
  126. [185][185] Yaqing Yang, Tony W Li, and Haojian Jin. 2024. On the Feasibility of Predicting Users' Privacy Concerns Using Contextual Labels and Personal Preferences. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642500 - · DOI
  127. [189][189] Robert B. Zajonc. 1968. Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, 2, Pt.2 (1968), 1-27. https://doi.org/10. 1037/h0025848 -
  128. [190][190] Alice Qian Zhang, Ryland Shaw, Jacy Reese Anthis, Ashlee Milton, Emily Tseng, Jina Suh, Lama Ahmad, Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, Julian Posada, Benjamin Shestakofsky, Sarah T. Roberts, and Mary L. Gray. 2024. The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/3678884.3687147 arXiv:2407.07786 [cs] - [192] John Zoshak and Kristin Dew. 2021. Beyond Kant and Bentham: How Ethical Theories Are Being Used in Artificial Moral Agents. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445102 - · DOI
  129. [191][191] Yixuan Zhang, Yimeng Wang, Nutchanon Yongsatianchot, Joseph D Gaggiano, Nurul M Suhaimi, Anne Okrah, Miso Kim, Jacqueline Griffin, and Andrea G Parker. 2024. Profiling the Dynamics of Trust & Distrust in Social Media: A Survey Study. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3613904.3642927

Authors
Anthis, J. R., Pauketat, J. V. T., Ladak, A., & Manoli, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Sentience Institute, New York, USA
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2025-04-25
Pages
1-22
DOI
10.1145/3706598.3713329
OpenAlex
W4409746363
Cited by
24
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 8
FWCI
24.38
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
Keywords
sentient AI, mind perception, public attitudes toward AI, artificial intelligence forecasting, digital mind, AI safety

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