arXiv subjects

Jean-François Bonnefon

Publications and source records attributed to Jean-François Bonnefon.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Time Machine Experiments: Using Historically-Bounded AI for Inquiry into the Human Mind

Can interacting with someone from 1930, with no knowledge of what happened after, influence a person's perception of the past? People reason about the present against a picture of the past without observing it. The past is reconstructed from memory and testimony, but this reconstruction has been filtered through everything that happened since. Historically-bounded large language models (LLMs) make that past available for interaction. As a proof-of-concept for the impact of interacting with historical minds, we ran a preregistered randomized experiment ($N=240$), where participants interacted with an LLM trained on pre-1930 text. The interaction reduced the illusion of moral decline, the tendency to view the past as more moral than the present, compared to the contemporary-model control. This Time Machine Experiment paradigm informs new forms of interactive experiments, where temporal knowledge boundaries become experimental variables, and expands the realm of science fiction science, which turns thought experiments into actual experiments.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

The Science Fiction Science Method

Predicting the social and behavioral impact of future technologies, before they are achieved, would allow us to guide their development and regulation before these impacts get entrenched. Traditionally, this prediction has relied on qualitative, narrative methods. Here we describe a method which uses experimental methods to simulate future technologies, and collect quantitative measures of the attitudes and behaviors of participants assigned to controlled variations of the future. We call this method 'science fiction science'. We suggest that the reason why this method has not been fully embraced yet, despite its potential benefits, is that experimental scientists may be reluctant to engage in work facing such serious validity threats as science fiction science. To address these threats, we consider possible constraints on the kind of technology that science fiction science may study, as well as the unconventional, immersive methods that science fiction science may require. We seek to provide perspective on the reasons why this method has been marginalized for so long, what benefits it would bring if it could be built on strong yet unusual methods, and how we can normalize these methods to help the diverse community of science fiction scientists to engage in a virtuous cycle of validity improvement.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Humans learn to prefer trustworthy AI over human partners

Partner selection is crucial for cooperation and hinges on communication. As artificial agents, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), become more autonomous, intelligent, and persuasive, they compete with humans for partnerships. Yet little is known about how humans select between human and AI partners and adapt under AI-induced competition pressure. We constructed a communication-based partner selection game and examined the dynamics in hybrid mini-societies of humans and bots powered by a state-of-the-art LLM. Through three experiments (N = 975), we found that bots, though more prosocial than humans and linguistically distinguishable, were not selected preferentially when their identity was hidden. Instead, humans misattributed bots' behaviour to humans and vice versa. Disclosing bots' identity induced a dual effect: it reduced bots' initial chances of being selected but allowed them to gradually outcompete humans by facilitating human learning about the behaviour of each partner type. These findings show how AI can reshape social interaction in mixed societies and inform the design of more effective and cooperative hybrid systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Experimental Evidence That AI-Managed Workers Tolerate Lower Pay Without Demotivation

Experimental evidence on worker responses to AI management remains mixed, partly due to limitations in experimental fidelity. We address these limitations with a customized workplace in the Minecraft platform, enabling high-resolution behavioral tracking of autonomous task execution, and ensuring that participants approach the task with well-formed expectations about their own competence. Workers (N = 382) completed repeated production tasks under either human, AI, or hybrid management. An AI manager trained on human-defined evaluation principles systematically assigned lower performance ratings and reduced wages by 40\%, without adverse effects on worker motivation and sense of fairness. These effects were driven by a muted emotional response to AI evaluation, compared to evaluation by a human. The very features that make AI appear impartial may also facilitate silent exploitation, by suppressing the social reactions that normally constrain extractive practices in human-managed work.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

False consensus biases AI against vulnerable stakeholders

The deployment of AI systems for welfare benefit allocation allows for accelerated decision-making and faster provision of critical help, but has already led to an increase in unfair benefit denials and false fraud accusations. Collecting data in the US and the UK (N = 2449), we explore the public acceptability of such speed-accuracy trade-offs in populations of claimants and non-claimants. We observe a general willingness to trade off speed gains for modest accuracy losses, but this aggregate view masks notable divergences between claimants and non-claimants. Although welfare claimants comprise a relatively small proportion of the general population (e.g., 20% in the US representative sample), this vulnerable group is much less willing to accept AI deployed in welfare systems, raising concerns that solely using aggregate data for calibration could lead to policies misaligned with stakeholder preferences. Our study further uncovers asymmetric insights between claimants and non-claimants. The latter consistently overestimate claimant willingness to accept speed-accuracy trade-offs, even when financially incentivized for accurate perspective-taking. This suggests that policy decisions influenced by the dominant voice of non-claimants, however well-intentioned, may neglect the actual preferences of those directly affected by welfare AI systems. Our findings underline the need for stakeholder engagement and transparent communication in the design and deployment of these systems, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making

Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating how AI may help mitigate pervasive social problems. In the information domain, generative AI can democratize content creation and access, but may dramatically expand the production and proliferation of misinformation. In the workplace, it can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning, but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it might improve diagnostics and accessibility, but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. In each section we cover a specific topic, evaluate existing research, identify critical gaps, and recommend research directions, including explicit trade-offs that complicate the derivation of a priori hypotheses. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI's potential to reduce inequalities while mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We propose several concrete policies that could promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Machine Culture

The ability of humans to create and disseminate culture is often credited as the single most important factor of our success as a species. In this Perspective, we explore the notion of machine culture, culture mediated or generated by machines. We argue that intelligent machines simultaneously transform the cultural evolutionary processes of variation, transmission, and selection. Recommender algorithms are altering social learning dynamics. Chatbots are forming a new mode of cultural transmission, serving as cultural models. Furthermore, intelligent machines are evolving as contributors in generating cultural traits--from game strategies and visual art to scientific results. We provide a conceptual framework for studying the present and anticipated future impact of machines on cultural evolution, and present a research agenda for the study of machine culture.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Lie detection algorithms attract few users but vastly increase accusation rates

People are not very good at detecting lies, which may explain why they refrain from accusing others of lying, given the social costs attached to false accusations - both for the accuser and the accused. Here we consider how this social balance might be disrupted by the availability of lie-detection algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence. Will people elect to use lie detection algorithms that perform better than humans, and if so, will they show less restraint in their accusations? We built a machine learning classifier whose accuracy (67\%) was significantly better than human accuracy (50\%) in a lie-detection task and conducted an incentivized lie-detection experiment in which we measured participants' propensity to use the algorithm, as well as the impact of that use on accusation rates. We find that the few people (33\%) who elect to use the algorithm drastically increase their accusation rates (from 25\% in the baseline condition up to 86% when the algorithm flags a statement as a lie). They make more false accusations (18pp increase), but at the same time, the probability of a lie remaining undetected is much lower in this group (36pp decrease). We consider individual motivations for using lie detection algorithms and the social implications of these algorithms.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2018

Blaming humans in autonomous vehicle accidents: Shared responsibility across levels of automation

When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered causally responsible for the harm, regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of shared control between a human and a machine, the blame and responsibility attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning AI components of semi-autonomous cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: a bottom-up regulatory scheme (which operates through tort law that is adjudicated through the jury system) could fail to properly regulate the safety of shared-control vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (enacted through federal laws) may be called for.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2018

Cooperating with Machines

Since Alan Turing envisioned Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1], a major driving force behind technical progress has been competition with human cognition. Historical milestones have been frequently associated with computers matching or outperforming humans in difficult cognitive tasks (e.g. face recognition [2], personality classification [3], driving cars [4], or playing video games [5]), or defeating humans in strategic zero-sum encounters (e.g. Chess [6], Checkers [7], Jeopardy! [8], Poker [9], or Go [10]). In contrast, less attention has been given to developing autonomous machines that establish mutually cooperative relationships with people who may not share the machine's preferences. A main challenge has been that human cooperation does not require sheer computational power, but rather relies on intuition [11], cultural norms [12], emotions and signals [13, 14, 15, 16], and pre-evolved dispositions toward cooperation [17], common-sense mechanisms that are difficult to encode in machines for arbitrary contexts. Here, we combine a state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithm with novel mechanisms for generating and acting on signals to produce a new learning algorithm that cooperates with people and other machines at levels that rival human cooperation in a variety of two-player repeated stochastic games. This is the first general-purpose algorithm that is capable, given a description of a previously unseen game environment, of learning to cooperate with people within short timescales in scenarios previously unanticipated by algorithm designers. This is achieved without complex opponent modeling or higher-order theories of mind, thus showing that flexible, fast, and general human-machine cooperation is computationally achievable using a non-trivial, but ultimately simple, set of algorithmic mechanisms.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2017

Experimental Assessment of Aggregation Principles in Argumentation-enabled Collective Intelligence

On the Web, there is always a need to aggregate opinions from the crowd (as in posts, social networks, forums, etc.). Different mechanisms have been implemented to capture these opinions such as "Like" in Facebook, "Favorite" in Twitter, thumbs-up/down, flagging, and so on. However, in more contested domains (e.g. Wikipedia, political discussion, and climate change discussion) these mechanisms are not sufficient since they only deal with each issue independently without considering the relationships between different claims. We can view a set of conflicting arguments as a graph in which the nodes represent arguments and the arcs between these nodes represent the defeat relation. A group of people can then collectively evaluate such graphs. To do this, the group must use a rule to aggregate their individual opinions about the entire argument graph. Here, we present the first experimental evaluation of different principles commonly employed by aggregation rules presented in the literature. We use randomized controlled experiments to investigate which principles people consider better at aggregating opinions under different conditions. Our analysis reveals a number of factors, not captured by traditional formal models, that play an important role in determining the efficacy of aggregation. These results help bring formal models of argumentation closer to real-world application.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2016

The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils-for example, running over pedestrians or sacrificing itself and its passenger to save them. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants to six MTurk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good), and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. They would disapprove of enforcing utilitarian AVs, and would be less willing to buy such a regulated AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2014

On the Qualitative Comparison of Decisions Having Positive and Negative Features

Making a decision is often a matter of listing and comparing positive and negative arguments. In such cases, the evaluation scale for decisions should be considered bipolar, that is, negative and positive values should be explicitly distinguished. That is what is done, for example, in Cumulative Prospect Theory. However, contraryto the latter framework that presupposes genuine numerical assessments, human agents often decide on the basis of an ordinal ranking of the pros and the cons, and by focusing on the most salient arguments. In other terms, the decision process is qualitative as well as bipolar. In this article, based on a bipolar extension of possibility theory, we define and axiomatically characterize several decision rules tailored for the joint handling of positive and negative arguments in an ordinal setting. The simplest rules can be viewed as extensions of the maximin and maximax criteria to the bipolar case, and consequently suffer from poor decisive power. More decisive rules that refine the former are also proposed. These refinements agree both with principles of efficiency and with the spirit of order-of-magnitude reasoning, that prevails in qualitative decision theory. The most refined decision rule uses leximin rankings of the pros and the cons, and the ideas of counting arguments of equal strength and cancelling pros by cons. It is shown to come down to a special case of Cumulative Prospect Theory, and to subsume the Take the Best heuristic studied by cognitive psychologists.

cs.AI↗