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:
Background: The increasing deployment of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI) in mental health interventions necessitates an evaluation of their efficacy in rectifying cognitive biases and recognizing affect in human-AI interactions. These biases, including theory of mind and autonomy biases, can exacerbate mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.
Objective: This study ai…
▽ More
Background: The increasing deployment of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI) in mental health interventions necessitates an evaluation of their efficacy in rectifying cognitive biases and recognizing affect in human-AI interactions. These biases, including theory of mind and autonomy biases, can exacerbate mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic chatbots (Wysa, Youper) versus general-purpose language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini Pro) in identifying and rectifying cognitive biases and recognizing affect in user interactions.
Methods: The study employed virtual case scenarios simulating typical user-bot interactions. Cognitive biases assessed included theory of mind biases (anthropomorphism, overtrust, attribution) and autonomy biases (illusion of control, fundamental attribution error, just-world hypothesis). Responses were evaluated on accuracy, therapeutic quality, and adherence to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) principles, using an ordinal scale. The evaluation involved double review by cognitive scientists and a clinical psychologist.
Results: The study revealed that general-purpose chatbots outperformed therapeutic chatbots in rectifying cognitive biases, particularly in overtrust bias, fundamental attribution error, and just-world hypothesis. GPT-4 achieved the highest scores across all biases, while therapeutic bots like Wysa scored the lowest. Affect recognition showed similar trends, with general-purpose bots outperforming therapeutic bots in four out of six biases. However, the results highlight the need for further refinement of therapeutic chatbots to enhance their efficacy and ensure safe, effective use in digital mental health interventions. Future research should focus on improving affective response and addressing ethical considerations in AI-based therapy.
△ Less
Submitted 23 July, 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.
