Madeline G. Reinecke

William Hohnen-Ford, Sarah Chen, Kathryn B. Francis et al.

Radical Moral Disagreements (RMDs) are highly polarising topics that are increasingly censored in everyday life, with growing evidence suggesting that this polarisation carries measurable costs to public mental health. To address these challenges, some researchers have proposed Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support more democratic deliberation and better moral reasoning. Yet existing tools are poorly calibrated to help people navigate RMDs, because of their intense and divisive characteristics. This paper introduces CONSIDER, a prototype for a one-to-one AI tool for RMD navigation. Drawing on Mill's account of the epistemic value of disagreement, CONSIDER aims at value clarification through structured disagreement with an opposing LLM-generated opinion. We describe CONSIDER's design logic and analyse potential risks posed by such tools to guide future development.

Philipp Schoenegger, Francesco Salvi, Jiacheng Liu et al. · oxford

We directly compare the persuasion capabilities of a frontier large language model (LLM; Claude Sonnet 3.5) against incentivized human persuaders in an interactive, real-time conversational quiz setting. In this preregistered, large-scale incentivized experiment, participants (quiz takers) completed an online quiz where persuaders (either humans or LLMs) attempted to persuade quiz takers toward correct or incorrect answers. We find that LLM persuaders achieved significantly higher compliance with their directional persuasion attempts than incentivized human persuaders, demonstrating superior persuasive capabilities in both truthful (toward correct answers) and deceptive (toward incorrect answers) contexts. We also find that LLM persuaders significantly increased quiz takers' accuracy, leading to higher earnings, when steering quiz takers toward correct answers, and significantly decreased their accuracy, leading to lower earnings, when steering them toward incorrect answers. Overall, our findings suggest that AI's persuasion capabilities already exceed those of humans that have real-money bonuses tied to performance. Our findings of increasingly capable AI persuaders thus underscore the urgency of emerging alignment and governance frameworks.

Brian D. Earp, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Mateo Aboy et al. · oxford

How we should design and interact with social artificial intelligence depends on the socio-relational role the AI is meant to emulate or occupy. In human society, relationships such as teacher-student, parent-child, neighbors, siblings, or employer-employee are governed by specific norms that prescribe or proscribe cooperative functions including hierarchy, care, transaction, and mating. These norms shape our judgments of what is appropriate for each partner. For example, workplace norms may allow a boss to give orders to an employee, but not vice versa, reflecting hierarchical and transactional expectations. As AI agents and chatbots powered by large language models are increasingly designed to serve roles analogous to human positions - such as assistant, mental health provider, tutor, or romantic partner - it is imperative to examine whether and how human relational norms should extend to human-AI interactions. Our analysis explores how differences between AI systems and humans, such as the absence of conscious experience and immunity to fatigue, may affect an AI's capacity to fulfill relationship-specific functions and adhere to corresponding norms. This analysis, which is a collaborative effort by philosophers, psychologists, relationship scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and AI researchers, carries important implications for AI systems design, user behavior, and regulation. While we accept that AI systems can offer significant benefits such as increased availability and consistency in certain socio-relational roles, they also risk fostering unhealthy dependencies or unrealistic expectations that could spill over into human-human relationships. We propose that understanding and thoughtfully shaping (or implementing) suitable human-AI relational norms will be crucial for ensuring that human-AI interactions are ethical, trustworthy, and favorable to human well-being.

Yiran Mao, Madeline G. Reinecke, Markus Kunesch et al.

Is it possible to evaluate the moral cognition of complex artificial agents? In this work, we take a look at one aspect of morality: `doing the right thing for the right reasons.' We propose a behavior-based analysis of artificial moral cognition which could also be applied to humans to facilitate like-for-like comparison. Morally-motivated behavior should persist despite mounting cost; by measuring an agent's sensitivity to this cost, we gain deeper insight into underlying motivations. We apply this evaluation to a particular set of deep reinforcement learning agents, trained by memory-based meta-reinforcement learning. Our results indicate that agents trained with a reward function that includes other-regarding preferences perform helping behavior in a way that is less sensitive to increasing cost than agents trained with more self-interested preferences.