As machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) influence humans’ behaviour in ways that are both like and unlike the ways humans influence each other, worry emerges about the corrupting power of AI agents. To estimate the empirical validity of these fears, we review the available evidence from behavioural science, human–computer interaction and AI research. We propose four main social roles through which both humans and machines can influence ethical behaviour. These are: role model, advisor, partner and delegate. When AI agents become influencers (role models or advisors), their corrupting power may not exceed the corrupting power of humans (yet). However, AI agents acting as enablers of unethical behaviour (partners or delegates) have many characteristics that may let people reap unethical benefits while feeling good about themselves, a potentially perilous interaction. On the basis of these insights, we outline a research agenda to gain behavioural insights for better AI oversight.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Open Access articles citing this article.
Scientific Reports Open Access 19 May 2022
Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation
Minds and Machines Open Access 05 November 2021
Linking Human And Machine Behavior: A New Approach to Evaluate Training Data Quality for Beneficial Machine Learning
Minds and Machines Open Access 26 September 2021
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Abeler, J., Nosenzo, D. & Raymond, C. Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87, 1115–1153 (2019).
Gächter, S. & Schulz, J. F. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature 531, 496–499 (2016).
Weisel, O. & Shalvi, S. The collaborative roots of corruption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10651–10656 (2015).
Rahwan, I. et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 568, 477–486 (2019).
de Melo, C. M., Marsella, S. & Gratch, J. Social decisions and fairness change when people’s interests are represented by autonomous agents. Auton. Agent. Multi Agent Syst. 32, 163–187 (2018).
Domingos, P. A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 55, 78–87 (2012).
Yang, G.-Z. et al. The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci. Robot. 3, eaar7650 (2018).
Floridi, L. Faultless responsibility: on the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0112 (2016).
Damiani, J. A voice deepfake was used to scam a CEO out of $243,000. Forbes Magazine https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2019/09/03/a-voice-deepfake-was-used-to-scam-a-ceo-out-of-243000/ (3 September 2019).
Robitzski, D. This grad student used a neural network to write his papers. Futurism https://futurism.com/grad-student-neural-network-write-papers (21 April 2020).
Lin, T. C. W. The new market manipulation. Emory Law J. 66, 1253–1315 (2016).
Hakim, F. Z. M., Indrayani, L. M. & Amalia, R. M. A dialogic analysis of compliment strategies employed by Replika chatbot. In Proc. 3rd International Conference of Arts, Language and Culture (ICALC 2018) https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icalc-18/55913474 (Atlantis, 2019).
Cave, S. & Dihal, K. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 74–78 (2019).
White Paper on Artificial Intelligence—A European Approach to Excellence and Trust (EU Commission, 2020).
Plant, S. Zeros and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture (Fourth Estate, 1997).
Frank, M., Roehrig, P. & Pring, B. What to Do When Machines Do Everything: How to Get Ahead in a World of AI, Algorithms, Bots, and Big Data (Wiley, 2017).
Tegmark, M. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Knopf, 2017).
Mungiu-Pippidi, A. The time has come for evidence-based anticorruption. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0011 (2017).
Gino, F. Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3, 107–111 (2015).
Jones, T. M. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16, 366–395 (1991).
Cohn, A., Maréchal, M. A., Tannenbaum, D. & Zünd, C. L. Civic honesty around the globe. Science 365, 70–73 (2019).
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R. & Reynolds, S. J. Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review. J. Manag. 32, 951–990 (2006).
Bazerman, M. H. & Gino, F. Behavioral ethics: toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 8, 85–104 (2012).
Shalvi, S., Weisel, O., Kochavi-Gamlie, S. & Leib, M. in Cheating, Corruption, and Concealment: the Roots of Dishonesty (eds Van Prooijen, J. W. & Van Lange, P. A. M.) 134–148 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).
Mazar, N., Amir, O. & Ariely, D. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Mark. Res. 45, 633–644 (2008).
Ariely, D. The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone—Especially Ourselves (HarperCollins, 2012).
Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R. & Ayal, S. Self-serving justifications: doing wrong and feeling moral. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 125–130 (2015).
Cohn, A., Fehr, E. & Maréchal, M. A. Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature 516, 86–89 (2014).
Rahwan, Z., Yoeli, E. & Fasolo, B. Heterogeneity in banker culture and its influence on dishonesty. Nature 575, 345–349 (2019).
Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K. & Hertwig, R. The truth about lies: a meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychol. Bull. 145, 1–44 (2019).
Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F. & Van Lange, P. A. M. Prospection in individual and interpersonal corruption dilemmas. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 20, 71–85 (2016).
Gross, J., Leib, M., Offerman, T. & Shalvi, S. Ethical free riding: when honest people find dishonest partners. Psychol. Sci. 29, 1956–1968 (2018).
Gross, J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Rule following mitigates collaborative cheating and facilitates the spreading of honesty within groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 395–409 (2020).
Leib, M., Köbis, N. C., Soraperra, I., Weisel, O. & Shalvi, S. Collaborative Dishonesty: a Meta-Study CREED Working Paper Series (Univ. Amsterdam, 2021).
Thomas, P. S. et al. Preventing undesirable behavior of intelligent machines. Science 366, 999–1004 (2019).
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C. & Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 447–453 (2019).
Koenecke, A. et al. Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7684–7689 (2020).
He, Q., Turel, O. & Bechara, A. Brain anatomy alterations associated with social networking site (SNS) addiction. Sci. Rep. 7, 45064 (2017).
Aral, S. The Hype Machine: How Social Media Disrupts Our Elections, Our Economy, and Our Health–and How We Must Adapt (Crown, 2020).
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).
Soraperra, I. et al. The bad consequences of teamwork. Econ. Lett. 160, 12–15 (2017).
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026.
Bicchieri, C. Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Efferson, C., Vogt, S. & Fehr, E. The promise and the peril of using social influence to reverse harmful traditions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 55–68 (2020).
Köbis, N. C., Troost, M., Brandt, C. O. & Soraperra, I. Social norms of corruption in the field: social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.37 (2019).
Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F. & Van Lange, P. A. M. ‘Who doesn’t?’—the impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PLoS ONE 10, e0131830 (2015).
Köbis, N. C., Jackson, D. & Carter, D. I. in A Research Agenda for Studies of Corruption (eds Mungiu-Pippidi, A. & Heywood, P.) 41–53 (Edward Elgar, 2020).
Brandstetter, J. et al. A peer pressure experiment: recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. In Proc. 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 1335–1340 (IEEE, 2014).
Shiomi, M. & Hagita, N. Do synchronized multiple robots exert peer pressure? In Proc. 4th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction 27–33 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).
Vollmer, A.-L., Read, R., Trippas, D. & Belpaeme, T. Children conform, adults resist: a robot group induced peer pressure on normative social conformity. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat7111 (2018).
Salomons, N., van der Linden, M., Strohkorb Sebo, S. & Scassellati, B. Humans conform to robots: disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. In Proc. 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction 187–195 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018).
Hertz, N. & Wiese, E. Under pressure: examining social conformity with computer and robot groups. Hum. Factors 60, 1207–1218 (2018).
Hertz, N., Shaw, T., de Visser, E. J. & Wiese, E. Mixing it up: how mixed groups of humans and machines modulate conformity. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 13, 242–257 (2019).
Köbis, N. & Mossink, L. Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Comput. Human Behav. 114, 106553 (2021).
Ishowo-Oloko, F. et al. Behavioural evidence for a transparency–efficiency tradeoff in human–machine cooperation. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 517–521 (2019).
Song-Nichols, K. & Young, A. G. Gendered robots can change children’s gender stereotyping. In Proc. CogSci 2020 2480–2485 (Cognitive Science Society, 2020).
Williams, R., Machado, C. V., Druga, S., Breazeal, C. & Maes, P. ‘My doll says it’s ok’: a study of children’s conformity to a talking doll. In Proc. 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children 625–631 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018).
Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 67, 371–378 (1963).
Burger, J. M. Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today? Am. Psychol. 64, 1–11 (2009).
Gino, F., Moore, D. A. & Bazerman, M. H. No Harm, No Foul: the Outcome Bias in Ethical Judgments Harvard Business School NOM Working Paper (Harvard Univ., 2009).
Wiltermuth, S. S., Newman, D. T. & Raj, M. The consequences of dishonesty. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 20–24 (2015).
Fogg, B. J. Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology 1–6 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2009).
Longoni, C. & Cian, L. Artificial intelligence in utilitarian vs. hedonic contexts: the ‘word-of-machine’ effect. J. Mark. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022242920957347 (2020).
AI reads human emotions. Should it? MIT Technology Review (14 October 2020).
How close is AI to decoding our emotions? MIT Technology Review (24 September 2020).
Giubilini, A. & Savulescu, J. The artificial moral advisor. The ‘ideal observer’ meets artificial intelligence. Philos. Technol. 31, 169–188 (2018).
Hoc, J.-M. & Lemoine, M.-P. Cognitive evaluation of human–human and human–machine cooperation modes in air traffic control. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 8, 1–32 (1998).
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W. & Lehmann, D. R. Task-dependent algorithm aversion. J. Mark. Res. 56, 809–825 (2019).
Dietvorst, B., Simmons, J. P. & Massey, C. Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 114–126 (2015).
Leib, M., Köbis, N. C., Hagens, M., Rilke, R. & Irlenbusch, B. The corruptive force of AI-generated advice. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07536
Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M. & Wagner, A. R. Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In Proc. 2016 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction 101–108 (2016).
Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monogr. 70, 1–70 (1956).
Larsen, K. S. The Asch conformity experiment: replication and transhistorical comparison. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 5, 163–168 (1990).
Wiltermuth, S. S. Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115, 157–168 (2011).
Ryvkin, D. & Serra, D. Corruption and competition among bureaucrats: an experimental study. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 175, 439–451 (2018).
Köbis, N. C., van Prooijen, J.-W., Righetti, F. & Van Lange, P. A. M. The road to bribery and corruption: slippery slope or steep cliff? Psychol. Sci. 28, 297–306 (2017).
Lambsdorff, J. G. & Frank, B. Corrupt reciprocity–experimental evidence on a men’s game. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 31, 116–125 (2011).
Schmidt, K. in Distributed Decision Making: Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work (eds Rasmussen, J. et al.) 75–110 (Wiley, 1991).
Hoc, J.-M. Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 54, 509–540 (2001).
Flemisch, F. et al. Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cogn. Technol. Work 14, 3–18 (2012).
Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E. & Trigg, R. Reconstructing technologies as social practice. Am. Behav. Sci. 43, 392–408 (1999).
Chugunova, M. & Sele, D. We and It: an Interdisciplinary Review of the Experimental Evidence on Human-Machine Interaction https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3692293 (SSRN, 2020).
Crandall, J. W. et al. Cooperating with machines. Nat. Commun. 9, 233 (2018).
Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolò, V. & Pastorello, S. Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing and collusion. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 3267–3297 (2019).
Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolò, V., Harrington, J. E. Jr & Pastorello, S. Protecting consumers from collusive prices due to AI. Science 370, 1040–1042 (2020).
Martinez-Miranda, E., McBurney, P. & Howard, M. J. W. Learning unfair trading: a market manipulation analysis from the reinforcement learning perspective. In Proc. 2016 IEEE Conference on Evolving and Adaptive Intelligent Systems 103–109 (EAIS, 2016).
Mell, J., Lucas, G. & Gratch, J. in Intelligent Virtual Agents 273–282 (Springer, 2017).
Hohenstein, J. & Jung, M. AI as a moral crumple zone: the effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust. Comput. Human Behav. 106, 106190 (2020).
Kirchkamp, O. & Strobel, C. Sharing responsibility with a machine. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 80, 25–33 (2019).
Pezzo, M. V. & Pezzo, S. P. Physician evaluation after medical errors: does having a computer decision aid help or hurt in hindsight? Med. Decis. Mak. 26, 48–56 (2006).
Paravisini, D. & Schoar, A. The Incentive Effect of Scores: Randomized Evidence from Credit Committees Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013).
Gombolay, M. C., Gutierrez, R. A., Clarke, S. G., Sturla, G. F. & Shah, J. A. Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Auton. Robots 39, 293–312 (2015).
Shank, D. B., DeSanti, A. & Maninger, T. When are artificial intelligence versus human agents faulted for wrongdoing? Moral attributions after individual and joint decisions. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 648–663 (2019).
Houser, D. & Kurzban, R. Revisiting kindness and confusion in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 1062–1069 (2002).
Coricelli, G. & Nagel, R. Neural correlates of depth of strategic reasoning in medial prefrontal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9163–9168 (2009).
Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron 50, 531–534 (2006).
Schniter, E., Shields, T. W. & Sznycer, D. Trust in humans and robots: economically similar but emotionally different. J. Econ. Psychol. 78, 102253 (2020).
De Melo, C., Marsella, S. & Gratch, J. People do not feel guilty about exploiting machines. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 23 (2016).
Mazar, N. & Ariely, D. Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. J. Public Policy Mark. 25, 117–126 (2006).
Köbis, N., Starke, C. & Rahwan, I. Artificial intelligence as an anti-corruption tool (AI-ACT)–potentials and pitfalls for top-down and bottom-up approaches. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11567 (2021).
Drugov, M., Hamman, J. & Serra, D. Intermediaries in corruption: an experiment. Exp. Econ. 17, 78–99 (2014).
Van Zant, A. B. & Kray, L. J. ‘I can’t lie to your face’: minimal face-to-face interaction promotes honesty. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 55, 234–238 (2014).
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S. & Floridi, L. The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679 (2016).
Gogoll, J. & Uhl, M. Rage against the machine: automation in the moral domain. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 74, 97–103 (2018).
McAllister, A. Stranger than science fiction: the rise of AI interrogation in the dawn of autonomous robots and the need for an additional protocol to the UN convention against torture. Minn. Law Rev. 101, 2527–2574 (2016).
Mell, J., Lucas, G., Mozgai, S. & Gratch, J. The effects of experience on deception in human–agent negotiation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 68, 633–660 (2020).
Miller, T. Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. Artif. Intell. 267, 1–36 (2019).
Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J. & Miller, T. XAI—explainable artificial intelligence. Sci. Robot. 4, eaay7120 (2019).
King, T. C., Aggarwal, N., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. Artificial intelligence crime: an interdisciplinary analysis of foreseeable threats and solutions. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 89–120 (2020).
Dana, J., Weber, R. A. & Kuang, J. X. Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Econ. Theory 33, 67–80 (2007).
Hancock, J. T. & Guillory, J. in The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology (ed. Sundar, S. S.) 270–289 (Wiley, 2015).
Seymour, J. & Tully, P. Weaponizing data science for social engineering: automated E2E spear phishing on Twitter. Black Hat USA https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Seymour-Tully-Weaponizing-Data-Science-For-Social-Engineering-Automated-E2E-Spear-Phishing-On-Twitter-wp.pdf (2016).
Caldwell, M., Andrews, J. T. A., Tanay, T. & Griffin, L. D. AI-enabled future crime. Crime Sci. 9, 14 (2020).
Sharkey, N., Goodman, M. & Ross, N. The coming robot crime wave. Computer 43, 115–116 (2010).
Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M. & Menczer, F. Social phishing. Commun. ACM 50, 94–100 (2007).
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 59, 96–104 (2016).
Brundage, M. et al. The malicious use of artificial intelligence: forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07228 (2018).
Bendel, O. The synthetization of human voices. AI Soc. 34, 83–89 (2019).
McKelvey, F. & Dubois, E. Computational Propaganda in Canada: the Use of Political Bots (Computational Propaganda Research Project, 2017).
Ostermaier, A. & Uhl, M. Spot on for liars! How public scrutiny influences ethical behavior. PLoS ONE 12, e0181682 (2017).
Köbis, N. C., Verschuere, B., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Rand, D. & Shalvi, S. Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: meta-analytic evidence. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 778–796 (2019).
Rauhut, H. Beliefs about lying and spreading of dishonesty: undetected lies and their constructive and destructive social dynamics in dice experiments. PLoS ONE 8, e77878 (2013).
Leyer, M. & Schneider, S. Me, you or AI? How do we feel about delegation. In Proc. 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/36 (2019).
Wellman, M. P. & Rajan, U. Ethical issues for autonomous trading agents. Minds Mach. 27, 609–624 (2017).
Tenbrunsel, A. E. & Messick, D. M. Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Soc. Justice Res. 17, 223–236 (2004).
Bazerman, M. H. & Banaji, M. R. The social psychology of ordinary ethical failures. Soc. Justice Res. 17, 111–115 (2004).
Bazerman, M. H. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It. (Princeton Univ. Press, 2012).
Sloane, M. & Moss, E. AI’s social sciences deficit. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 330–331 (2019).
Irving, G. & Askell, A. AI safety needs social scientists. Distill 4, e14 (2019).
Crawford, K. & Calo, R. There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature 538, 311–313 (2016).
Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).
Bigman, Y. E., Waytz, A., Alterovitz, R. & Gray, K. Holding robots responsible: the elements of machine morality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 365–368 (2019).
Burton, J. W., Stein, M. & Jensen, T. B. A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 33, 220–239 (2020).
Fisman, R. & Golden, M. How to fight corruption. Science 356, 803–804 (2017).
De Angeli, A. Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents. PsychNology J. 7, 49–57 (2009).
McDonnell, M. & Baxter, D. Chatbots and gender stereotyping. Interact. Comput. 31, 116–121 (2019).
Schwickerath, A. K., Varraich, A. & Smith, L.-L. How to research corruption. In Conference Proceedings Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Forum (eds Schwickerath, A. K. et al.) 7–8 (Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network, 2016).
Salganik, M. J. Bit by Bit (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).
Fisman, R. & Miguel, E. Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. J. Polit. Econ. 115, 1020–1048 (2007).
Pierce, L. & Balasubramanian, P. Behavioral field evidence on psychological and social factors in dishonesty and misconduct. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6, 70–76 (2015).
Dai, Z., Galeotti, F. & Villeval, M. C. Cheating in the lab predicts fraud in the field: an experiment in public transportation. Manag. Sci. 64, 1081–1100 (2018).
Cohn, A. & Maréchal, M. A. Laboratory measure of cheating predicts school misconduct. Econ. J. 128, 2743–2754 (2018).
Floridi, L. & Sanders, J. W. On the morality of artificial agents. Minds Mach. 14, 349–379 (2004).
Hagendorff, T. Ethical behavior in humans and machines–evaluating training data quality for beneficial machine learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.11463 (2020).
Mullainathan, S. Biased algorithms are easier to fix than biased people. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/business/algorithm-bias-fix.html (6 December 2019).
Hutson, M. Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis. Science 359, 725–726 (2018).
IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Ethically Aligned Design: a Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems Version 2 https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf (IEEE, 2017).
Russell, S., Dewey, D. & Tegmark, M. Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Mag. 36, 105–114 (2015).
Amir, O. et al. Psychology, behavioral economics, and public policy. Mark. Lett. 16, 443–454 (2005).
OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence OECD/LEGAL/0449 (OECD, 2020).
Fisman, R. & Golden, M. A. Corruption: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).
Shin, D. & Park, Y. J. Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Comput. Human Behav. 98, 277–284 (2019).
Diakopoulos, N. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59, 56–62 (2016).
Walsh, T. Turing’s red flag. Commun. ACM 59, 34–37 (2016).
Webb, A. The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity (Hachette UK, 2019).
Crawford, K. Halt the use of facial-recognition technology until it is regulated. Nature 572, 565 (2019).
Hagendorff, T. Forbidden knowledge in machine learning reflections on the limits of research and publication. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01045-4 (2020).
Finkel, A. What will it take for us to trust AI? World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/alan-finkel-turing-certificate-ai-trust-robot (12 May 2018).
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. Crowdsourcing moral machines. Commun. ACM 63, 48–55 (2020).
We thank A. Bouza da Costa for designing the illustrations, and M. Leib and L. Karim for valuable comments on the manuscript. J.-F.B. acknowledges support from the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, grant ANR-19-PI3A-0004 from the Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute and grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 from Investissements d’Avenir.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Thilo Hagendorff and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Köbis, N., Bonnefon, JF. & Rahwan, I. Bad machines corrupt good morals. Nat Hum Behav 5, 679–685 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01128-2
Nature Machine Intelligence (2022)
Nature Human Behaviour (2022)
Scientific Reports (2022)
Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation
Minds and Machines (2022)
Philosophy & Technology (2022)