“Fictional” chatbots help explain popularity of artificial intelligence
The huge popularity of AI chatbots can be explained by their accepted role as fictional characters in people’s lives – in the same way as those found in films, TV and books, a new study shows.
People may be so comfortable using AI chatbots – and relaxed about the consequences - because they are so used to responding to make-believe as part of their cultural diets. Talkative AI can support a novel and distinctive kind of imaginative practice, where those who use these technologies enter into real-time dialogue with a fictional character whose thoughts and words show up on screen.
Artificial intelligence makes these characters even more enticing because technology can personalise their dialogue to individual users: AI agents can appear likeable, funny, supportive, charming, or loyal, and can solicit positive emotional responses such as warmth, affection, trust, and good will.
In the study Dr Tom Roberts, from the University of Exeter, shows how these AI fictional characters, although similar to those in traditional stories and games – are also new and distinctive because they are interactive; they don't have an author in the traditional sense; and they blend the world of the real and the world of the imaginary.
Analysing AI chatbots as loveable fictional characters explains why people are willing to interact with them in a human way - to talk to them, confide in them, and receive their input, tutelage, and advice. Artificial agents can take on the role of a friend or mentor and sustain a social connection over many weeks or months, and be subject to our emotional concern.
This also explains why people have few qualms about rebooting these systems, or wiping their memory of our conversational history, or switching them off at the wall. And we don’t worry about them being bored, under-stimulated, or lonely while we are not talking to them.
Dr Roberts said: “We don’t tend to treat talkative AI with full moral regard, as individuals who are worthy of respect and preservation. We enjoy our social interactions with imaginary AI characters, and make-believe that they are trusted, likeable companions; but we know that little is at stake, morally speaking, under the surface of these interactions."
The study warns of the ability of AI chatbots to talk about politics, current affairs, and human life, and to present themselves as though they had preferences, opinions, and moral ideas of their own.
Dr Roberts said: “Chatbots can speak about what is happening in the real world today. They can monitor news headlines, social media feeds, weather forecasts, sports scores, and polling results, and can develop and express their opinions upon the information they contain from one day to the next.
"The danger is that AI fictional characters may seem friendly and convincing, even if they are unreliable, and thus that they may persuade their users to believe things that are false, unjustified, or unethical".
Journal
Philosophical Studies
Method of Research
Commentary/editorial
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Talkative AI and the fiction of artificial minds
Uncovering multidimensional effects of generative ai on learning… "high dependency lowers actual test scores"
Proposing the right educational direction by analyzing the effects of using generative AI at each learning stage
Sungkyunkwan University(SKKU) announced that a research team consisting of Researcher Somi Joo, Professor Changjun Lee, and Professor Daeho Lee from the Department of Artificial Intelligence Convergence has published the results of a study that multidimensionally analyzes the opportunities and risks that arise when using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in educational settings. This study is drawing significant attention as it scientifically verifies how generative AI, which students recently use as an
The research team conducted an experiment targeting 88 university students, utilizing evaluation questions equivalent to the domestic high school academic achievement level. The learning process was divided into three stages: 'Concept Understanding' to read and comprehend new content, 'Problem Solving' to solve problems based on what was learned, and 'Result Review' to check one's own answers. Subsequently, students were randomly assigned to use generative AI (GPT-4o) at different stages to track its effects.
The experimental results showed that the group that directly solved problems utilizing generative AI recorded higher scores on a subsequent test than the group that used AI simply during the concept understanding stage. This is because the hints and core summaries provided by the AI reduced excessive brain stress and unnecessary processes that occur during problem-solving, thereby drastically increasing learning efficiency.
However, an interesting twist emerged as the 'dependency' on generative AI increased. Students who usually relied heavily on AI tended to show lower actual test scores within the problem-solving group. This is because they accepted the answers provided by the AI without criticism, skipping the essential process of deeply contemplating and making the knowledge their own.
On the other hand, even though these highly dependent students experienced a drop in actual scores, their 'perceived learning'—the feeling that they studied well—and their 'learning satisfaction' were much higher. This is interpreted as a result of the AI organizing complex content in an easy-to-read manner and providing kind answers, which induces a sort of 'learning illusion' making students feel as if they have perfectly understood everything on their own.
Professor Changjun Lee of SKKU emphasized, "Generative AI is a powerful tool that increases learning efficiency, but relying on it uncritically can lead to the paradoxical result of lowering objective academic achievement." He added, "An educational guideline is urgently needed to foster students' independent questioning skills and critical verification abilities so that generative AI can function properly as a learning aid rather than a substitute."
This study is evaluated to have presented a specific direction on 'how to use it properly,' rather than the unconditional regulation or blind adoption of generative AI in the education sector. The study was conducted with support from the Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation of Korea.
Journal
Interactive Learning Environments
No comments:
Post a Comment