Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Kruegel, S

The global consensus on the risk management of autonomous driving

Authors: Sebastian Krügel, Matthias Uhl

Abstract: Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution p… ▽ More Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries deviates from a guiding principle of minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios disappears in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations in all countries. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that a global consensus on the risk ethics of autonomous driving is easier to establish than on the ethics of crashing. △ Less

Submitted 9 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

ChatGPT's advice drives moral judgments with or without justification

Authors: Sebastian Kruegel, Andreas Ostermaier, Matthias Uhl

Abstract: Why do users follow moral advice from chatbots? A chatbot is not an authoritative moral advisor, but it can generate seemingly plausible arguments. Users do not follow reasoned more readily than unreasoned advice, though, we find in an experiment. However, this is also true if we attribute advice to a moral advisor, not a chatbot. Hence, it seems that advice offers users a cheap way to escape from… ▽ More Why do users follow moral advice from chatbots? A chatbot is not an authoritative moral advisor, but it can generate seemingly plausible arguments. Users do not follow reasoned more readily than unreasoned advice, though, we find in an experiment. However, this is also true if we attribute advice to a moral advisor, not a chatbot. Hence, it seems that advice offers users a cheap way to escape from a moral dilemma. This is a concern that chatbots do not raise, but they exacerbate it as they make advice easily accessible. We conclude that it takes ethical in addition to digital literacy to harness users against moral advice from chatbots. △ Less

Submitted 3 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" -- Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology

Authors: Emely Rosbach, Jonas Ammeling, Sebastian Krügel, Angelika Kießig, Alexis Fritz, Jonathan Ganz, Chloé Puget, Taryn Donovan, Andrea Klang, Maximilian C. Köller, Pompei Bolfa, Marco Tecilla, Daniela Denk, Matti Kiupel, Georgios Paraschou, Mun Keong Kok, Alexander F. H. Haake, Ronald R. de Krijger, Andreas F. -P. Sonnen, Tanit Kasantikul, Gerry M. Dorrestein, Rebecca C. Smedley, Nikolas Stathonikos, Matthias Uhl, Christof A. Bertram , et al. (2 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may worsen when time pressure, ubiquito… ▽ More Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may worsen when time pressure, ubiquitously present in routine pathology, strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration may fuel confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI use in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems. △ Less

Submitted 1 November, 2024; originally announced November 2024.

The moral authority of ChatGPT

Authors: Sebastian Krügel, Andreas Ostermaier, Matthias Uhl

Abstract: ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it might improve the moral judgment and decisions of users, who often hold contradictory moral beliefs. Unfortunately, ChatGPT turns out highly inconsistent as a moral advisor. Nonetheless, it influences users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if… ▽ More ChatGPT is not only fun to chat with, but it also searches information, answers questions, and gives advice. With consistent moral advice, it might improve the moral judgment and decisions of users, who often hold contradictory moral beliefs. Unfortunately, ChatGPT turns out highly inconsistent as a moral advisor. Nonetheless, it influences users' moral judgment, we find in an experiment, even if they know they are advised by a chatting bot, and they underestimate how much they are influenced. Thus, ChatGPT threatens to corrupt rather than improves users' judgment. These findings raise the question of how to ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT and similar AI. Transparency is often touted but seems ineffective. We propose training to improve digital literacy. △ Less

Submitted 13 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

The risk ethics of autonomous vehicles: a continuous trolley problem in regular road traffic

Authors: Sebastian Krügel, Matthias Uhl

Abstract: Is the ethics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) restricted to weighing lives in unavoidable accidents? We argue that AVs distribute risks between road users in regular traffic situations, either explicitly or implicitly. This distribution of risks raises ethically relevant questions that cannot be evaded by simple heuristics such as "hitting the brakes." Using an interactive, graphical representation o… ▽ More Is the ethics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) restricted to weighing lives in unavoidable accidents? We argue that AVs distribute risks between road users in regular traffic situations, either explicitly or implicitly. This distribution of risks raises ethically relevant questions that cannot be evaded by simple heuristics such as "hitting the brakes." Using an interactive, graphical representation of different traffic situations, we measured participants' preferences on driving maneuvers of AVs in a representative survey in Germany. Our participants' preferences deviated significantly from mere collision avoidance. Interestingly, our participants were willing to take risks themselves for the benefit of other road users suggesting that the social dilemma of AVs may lessen in a context of risk. △ Less

Submitted 24 May, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Zombies in the Loop? Humans Trust Untrustworthy AI-Advisors for Ethical Decisions

Authors: Sebastian Krügel, Andreas Ostermaier, Matthias Uhl

Abstract: Departing from the claim that AI needs to be trustworthy, we find that ethical advice from an AI-powered algorithm is trusted even when its users know nothing about its training data and when they learn information about it that warrants distrust. We conducted online experiments where the subjects took the role of decision-makers who received advice from an algorithm on how to deal with an ethical… ▽ More Departing from the claim that AI needs to be trustworthy, we find that ethical advice from an AI-powered algorithm is trusted even when its users know nothing about its training data and when they learn information about it that warrants distrust. We conducted online experiments where the subjects took the role of decision-makers who received advice from an algorithm on how to deal with an ethical dilemma. We manipulated the information about the algorithm and studied its influence. Our findings suggest that AI is overtrusted rather than distrusted. We suggest digital literacy as a potential remedy to ensure the responsible use of AI. △ Less

Submitted 2 November, 2021; v1 submitted 30 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.