Sangmi Kim

Jiyoon Kim, Kentaro Toyama, Sangmi Kim et al.

Generative AI challenges academic integrity not only by enabling students to delegate substantial portions of their academic work, but also by blurring the ethical boundaries by which students distinguish acceptable assistance from misconduct. Drawing on semi-structured interviews (n=20), AI chat logs, and course documents (syllabi, submitted assignments), we investigated how students themselves make moral sense of AI use in academic writing. Our analysis results in a range of novel findings: First, there are at least five distinct sites of AI-use conceptualization, ranging from faculty's intended AI policy, to students' actual AI use. Second, students use over 20 distinct rationalizations to justify AI use, such as that copying AI-generated text is victimless; that any AI text reflecting their own beliefs or their own style is their own writing; or that they are learning more by using AI -- even extensively -- than otherwise. We present a taxonomy of these rationalizations, and show how some of them are employed to justify conscious violations of course policies. Third, student rationalizations occur in both an ad hoc and post hoc manner, and they are not necessarily self-consistent. These and other findings suggest that modern AI presents a steep, ethical, slippery slope which students conceptually slide down, landing far outside the pedagogical goals and expectations of instructors. We discuss implications for educational design and AI policy.

Lionel P. Robert, Casey Pierce, Liz Morris et al.

Organizations are rapidly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to manage their workers. However, AI has been found at times to be unfair to workers. Unfairness toward workers has been associated with decreased worker effort and increased worker turnover. To avoid such problems, AI systems must be designed to support fairness and redress instances of unfairness. Despite the attention related to AI unfairness, there has not been a theoretical and systematic approach to developing a design agenda. This paper addresses the issue in three ways. First, we introduce the organizational justice theory, three different fairness types (distributive, procedural, interactional), and the frameworks for redressing instances of unfairness (retributive justice, restorative justice). Second, we review the design literature that specifically focuses on issues of AI fairness in organizations. Third, we propose a design agenda for AI fairness in organizations that applies each of the fairness types to organizational scenarios. Then, the paper concludes with implications for future research.

Lionel P. Robert, Rasha Alahmad, Connor Esterwood et al.

Personality has been identified as a vital factor in understanding the quality of human robot interactions. Despite this the research in this area remains fragmented and lacks a coherent framework. This makes it difficult to understand what we know and identify what we do not. As a result our knowledge of personality in human robot interactions has not kept pace with the deployment of robots in organizations or in our broader society. To address this shortcoming, this paper reviews 83 articles and 84 separate studies to assess the current state of human robot personality research. This review: (1) highlights major thematic research areas, (2) identifies gaps in the literature, (3) derives and presents major conclusions from the literature and (4) offers guidance for future research.