The Efficacy of Conversational Artificial Intelligence in Rectifying the Theory of Mind and Autonomy Biases: Comparative Analysis
Authors:
Marcin Rządeczka,
Anna Sterna,
Julia Stolińska,
Paulina Kaczyńska,
Marcin Moskalewicz
Abstract:
The study evaluates the efficacy of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI) in rectifying cognitive biases and recognizing affect in human-AI interactions, which is crucial for digital mental health interventions. Cognitive biases (systematic deviations from normative thinking) affect mental health, intensifying conditions like depression and anxiety. Therapeutic chatbots can make cognitive-b…
▽ More
The study evaluates the efficacy of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI) in rectifying cognitive biases and recognizing affect in human-AI interactions, which is crucial for digital mental health interventions. Cognitive biases (systematic deviations from normative thinking) affect mental health, intensifying conditions like depression and anxiety. Therapeutic chatbots can make cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) more accessible and affordable, offering scalable and immediate support. The research employs a structured methodology with clinical-based virtual case scenarios simulating typical user-bot interactions. Performance and affect recognition were assessed across two categories of cognitive biases: theory of mind biases (anthropomorphization of AI, overtrust in AI, attribution to AI) and autonomy biases (illusion of control, fundamental attribution error, just-world hypothesis). A qualitative feedback mechanism was used with an ordinal scale to quantify responses based on accuracy, therapeutic quality, and adherence to CBT principles. Therapeutic bots (Wysa, Youper) and general-use LLMs (GTP 3.5, GTP 4, Gemini Pro) were evaluated through scripted interactions, double-reviewed by cognitive scientists and a clinical psychologist. Statistical analysis showed therapeutic bots were consistently outperformed by non-therapeutic bots in bias rectification and in 4 out of 6 biases in affect recognition. The data suggests that non-therapeutic chatbots are more effective in addressing some cognitive biases.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2024; v1 submitted 19 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
Big Tech influence over AI research revisited: memetic analysis of attribution of ideas to affiliation
Authors:
Stanisław Giziński,
Paulina Kaczyńska,
Hubert Ruczyński,
Emilia Wiśnios,
Bartosz Pieliński,
Przemysław Biecek,
Julian Sienkiewicz
Abstract:
There exists a growing discourse around the domination of Big Tech on the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) research, yet our comprehension of this phenomenon remains cursory. This paper aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of Big Tech's reach and power within AI research. It highlights the dominance not merely in terms of sheer publication volume but rather in the propagation of n…
▽ More
There exists a growing discourse around the domination of Big Tech on the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) research, yet our comprehension of this phenomenon remains cursory. This paper aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of Big Tech's reach and power within AI research. It highlights the dominance not merely in terms of sheer publication volume but rather in the propagation of new ideas or \textit{memes}. Current studies often oversimplify the concept of influence to the share of affiliations in academic papers, typically sourced from limited databases such as arXiv or specific academic conferences.
The main goal of this paper is to unravel the specific nuances of such influence, determining which AI ideas are predominantly driven by Big Tech entities. By employing network and memetic analysis on AI-oriented paper abstracts and their citation network, we are able to grasp a deeper insight into this phenomenon. By utilizing two databases: OpenAlex and S2ORC, we are able to perform such analysis on a much bigger scale than previous attempts.
Our findings suggest, that while Big Tech-affiliated papers are disproportionately more cited in some areas, the most cited papers are those affiliated with both Big Tech and Academia. Focusing on the most contagious memes, their attribution to specific affiliation groups (Big Tech, Academia, mixed affiliation) seems to be equally distributed between those three groups. This suggests that the notion of Big Tech domination over AI research is oversimplified in the discourse.
Ultimately, this more nuanced understanding of Big Tech's and Academia's influence could inform a more symbiotic alliance between these stakeholders which would better serve the dual goals of societal welfare and the scientific integrity of AI research.
△ Less
Submitted 20 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
