arXiv subjects

Nils Köbis

Publications and source records attributed to Nils Köbis.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Puppets or partners? Governing cyborg propaganda in the digital public square

The distinction between genuine grassroots activism and automated influence operations is collapsing. While contemporary policy debates prioritize fully autonomous generative agents and synthetic content, this paper offers a conceptual contribution: we develop 'cyborg propaganda,' a closed-loop architecture combining verified human accounts with algorithmic automation to generate personalized content at scale, as a distinct and undertheorized threat to democratic discourse. By relying on verified citizens to ratify AI-generated messages, these campaigns exploit a regulatory gray zone that frameworks built on the human/bot binary (including the EU AI Act and Section 230) are structurally unable to address. Drawing on a conceptual analysis of coordination platforms and comparative examination of governance frameworks across democratic and non-democratic contexts, we analyze this paradox across micro, meso, and macro levels. We examine whether cyborg propaganda democratizes political power by unionizing influence or reduces citizens to cognitive proxies of a hidden directive, arguing that it shifts political discourse from a contest of ideas to a battle of algorithmic campaigns. We propose three regulatory responses: classifying coordination hubs as political action committees to enforce supply-chain transparency; mandating researcher access to platform data through DSA-style mechanisms; and establishing risk standards penalizing amplification of synthetically coordinated content. Comparative analysis reveals that viability varies structurally. Democratic states are simultaneously the most capable of regulation and the most rule-of-law constrained. By contrast, non-democratic actors face no comparable accountability, making international risk standards the primary cross-border enforcement mechanism.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Are they just delegating? Cross-Sample Predictions on University Students' & Teachers' Use of AI

Mutual trust between teachers and students is a prerequisite for effective teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education. Accurate predictions about the other group's use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) are fundamental for such trust. However, the disruptive rise of AI has transformed academic work practices, raising important questions about how teachers and students use these tools and how well they can estimate each other's usage. While the frequency of use is well studied, little is known about how AI is used, and comparisons with similar practices are rare. This study surveyed German university teachers (N = 113) and students (N = 123) on the frequency of AI use and the degree of delegation across six identical academic tasks. Participants also provided incentivized cross-sample predictions of the other group's AI use to assess the accuracy of their predictions. We find that students reported higher use of AI and greater delegation than teachers. Both groups significantly overestimated the other group's use, with teachers predicting very frequent use and high delegation by students, and students assuming teachers use AI similarly to themselves. These findings reveal a perception gap between teachers' and students' expectations and actual AI use. Such gaps may hinder trust and effective collaboration, underscoring the need for open dialogue about AI practices in academia and for policies that support the equitable and transparent integration of AI tools in higher education.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Does AI and Human Advice Mitigate Punishment for Selfish Behavior? An Experiment on AI ethics From a Psychological Perspective

People increasingly rely on AI-advice when making decisions. At times, such advice can promote selfish behavior. When individuals abide by selfishness-promoting AI advice, how are they perceived and punished? To study this question, we build on theories from social psychology and combine machine-behavior and behavioral economic approaches. In a pre-registered, financially-incentivized experiment, evaluators could punish real decision-makers who (i) received AI, human, or no advice. The advice (ii) encouraged selfish or prosocial behavior, and decision-makers (iii) behaved selfishly or, in a control condition, behaved prosocially. Evaluators further assigned responsibility to decision-makers and their advisors. Results revealed that (i) prosocial behavior was punished very little, whereas selfish behavior was punished much more. Focusing on selfish behavior, (ii) compared to receiving no advice, selfish behavior was penalized more harshly after prosocial advice and more leniently after selfish advice. Lastly, (iii) whereas selfish decision-makers were seen as more responsible when they followed AI compared to human advice, punishment between the two advice sources did not vary. Overall, behavior and advice content shape punishment, whereas the advice source does not.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Understanding Opportunities and Risks of Synthetic Relationships: Leveraging the Power of Longitudinal Research with Customised AI Tools

This position paper discusses the benefits of longitudinal behavioural research with customised AI tools for exploring the opportunities and risks of synthetic relationships. Synthetic relationships are defined as "continuing associations between humans and AI tools that interact with one another wherein the AI tool(s) influence(s) humans' thoughts, feelings, and/or actions." (Starke et al., 2024). These relationships can potentially improve health, education, and the workplace, but they also bring the risk of subtle manipulation and privacy and autonomy concerns. To harness the opportunities of synthetic relationships and mitigate their risks, we outline a methodological approach that complements existing findings. We propose longitudinal research designs with self-assembled AI agents that enable the integration of detailed behavioural and self-reported data.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Artificial Intelligence can facilitate selfish decisions by altering the appearance of interaction partners

The increasing prevalence of image-altering filters on social media and video conferencing technologies has raised concerns about the ethical and psychological implications of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to manipulate our perception of others. In this study, we specifically investigate the potential impact of blur filters, a type of appearance-altering technology, on individuals' behavior towards others. Our findings consistently demonstrate a significant increase in selfish behavior directed towards individuals whose appearance is blurred, suggesting that blur filters can facilitate moral disengagement through depersonalization. These results emphasize the need for broader ethical discussions surrounding AI technologies that modify our perception of others, including issues of transparency, consent, and the awareness of being subject to appearance manipulation by others. We also emphasize the importance of anticipatory experiments in informing the development of responsible guidelines and policies prior to the widespread adoption of such technologies.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Fears about AI-mediated communication are grounded in different expectations for one's own versus others' use

The rapid development of AI-mediated communication technologies (AICTs), which are digital tools that use AI to augment interpersonal messages, has raised concerns about the future of interpersonal trust and prompted discussions about disclosure and uptake. This paper contributes to this discussion by assessing perceptions about the acceptability and use of open and secret AICTs for oneself and others. In two studies with representative samples (UK: N=477, US: N=765), we found that secret AICT use is deemed less acceptable than open AICT use, people tend to overestimate others' AICT use, and people expect others to use AICTs irresponsibly. Thus, we raise concerns about the potential for misperceptions and different expectations for others to drive self-fulfilling pessimistic outlooks about AI-mediated communication.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Corrupted by Algorithms? How AI-generated and Human-written Advice Shape (Dis)honesty

Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly becomes an indispensable advisor. New ethical concerns arise if AI persuades people to behave dishonestly. In an experiment, we study how AI advice (generated by a Natural-Language-Processing algorithm) affects (dis)honesty, compare it to equivalent human advice, and test whether transparency about advice source matters. We find that dishonesty-promoting advice increases dishonesty, whereas honesty-promoting advice does not increase honesty. This is the case for both AI- and human advice. Algorithmic transparency, a commonly proposed policy to mitigate AI risks, does not affect behaviour. The findings mark the first steps towards managing AI advice responsibly.

cs.HC↗

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↗

arXiv2021

Artificial Intelligence as an Anti-Corruption Tool (AI-ACT) -- Potentials and Pitfalls for Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches

Corruption continues to be one of the biggest societal challenges of our time. New hope is placed in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to serve as an unbiased anti-corruption agent. Ever more available (open) government data paired with unprecedented performance of such algorithms render AI the next frontier in anti-corruption. Summarizing existing efforts to use AI-based anti-corruption tools (AI-ACT), we introduce a conceptual framework to advance research and policy. It outlines why AI presents a unique tool for top-down and bottom-up anti-corruption approaches. For both approaches, we outline in detail how AI-ACT present different potentials and pitfalls for (a) input data, (b) algorithmic design, and (c) institutional implementation. Finally, we venture a look into the future and flesh out key questions that need to be addressed to develop AI-ACT while considering citizens' views, hence putting "society in the loop".

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

Artificial Intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry

The release of openly available, robust natural language generation algorithms (NLG) has spurred much public attention and debate. One reason lies in the algorithms' purported ability to generate human-like text across various domains. Empirical evidence using incentivized tasks to assess whether people (a) can distinguish and (b) prefer algorithm-generated versus human-written text is lacking. We conducted two experiments assessing behavioral reactions to the state-of-the-art Natural Language Generation algorithm GPT-2 (Ntotal = 830). Using the identical starting lines of human poems, GPT-2 produced samples of poems. From these samples, either a random poem was chosen (Human-out-of-the-loop) or the best one was selected (Human-in-the-loop) and in turn matched with a human-written poem. In a new incentivized version of the Turing Test, participants failed to reliably detect the algorithmically-generated poems in the Human-in-the-loop treatment, yet succeeded in the Human-out-of-the-loop treatment. Further, people reveal a slight aversion to algorithm-generated poetry, independent on whether participants were informed about the algorithmic origin of the poem (Transparency) or not (Opacity). We discuss what these results convey about the performance of NLG algorithms to produce human-like text and propose methodologies to study such learning algorithms in human-agent experimental settings.

cs.AI↗