Aorigele Bao

Firstly, the "Metaverse" possesses two distinctive features, "thickness" and "imagination," promising the public a structure of unknown scenarios but with unclear definitions. Attempts to establish an open framework through incompleteness, however, fail to facilitate interactions between humans and the scenario. Due to the dilemma of "digital twinning," the "Metaverse" cannot be realized as "another universe". Hence, the "Metaverse" is, in fact, only a virtual experiential territory created by aggregating technologies that offer immersion and interactivity. Secondly, when artificial intelligence serves as a key supporting technology for the "Metaverse," it presents multifaceted existential risks, manifested as safety, cognitive, and ethical dilemmas. Finally, we propose that the framework for responsible "Metaverse" governance should be constructed through three pathways: collective responsibility, realism, and the co-governance of the virtual and real.

Humans often unconsciously perceive social robots involved in their lives as partners rather than mere tools, imbuing them with qualities of companionship. This anthropomorphization can lead to a spectrum of emotional risks, such as deception, disappointment, and reverse manipulation, that existing approaches struggle to address effectively. In this paper, we argue that a Virtual Interactive Environment (VIE) exists between humans and social robots, which plays a crucial role and demands necessary consideration and clarification in order to mitigate potential emotional risks. By analyzing the relational nature of human-social robot interaction, we discuss the connotation of such a virtual interactive environment that is similar to the emotional states aroused when reading novels. Building on this comprehension, we further demonstrate that manufacturers should carry out comprehensive Virtual Interactive Environment Indication (VIEI) measures during human-social robot interaction with a stricter sense of responsibility when applying social robots. Finally, we contemplate the potential contributions of virtual interactive environment indication to existing robot ethics guidelines.

“Deathbots,” digital constructs that emulate the conversational patterns, demeanor, and knowledge of deceased individuals. Earlier moral discussions about deathbots centered on the dignity and autonomy of the deceased. This paper primarily examines the potential psychological and emotional dependencies that users might develop towards deathbots, considering approaches to prevent problematic dependence through temporary use. We adopt a hermeneutic method to argue that deathbots, as they currently exist, are unlikely to provide substantial comfort. Lacking the capacity to bear emotional burdens, they fall short of meeting idealistic expectations. By repositioning deathbots, we aim to mitigate the risk of emotional dependency and respect the natural grieving process. Our goal is to propose the use of deathbots as a novel means of mourning through transitory use, rather than as a method to alleviate grief or as a patterns for communication with the deceased.

Background In this paper, we explore the question “Why can’t AI be a coauthor?” and reveal a rarely discussed reason. Methods and Results First, allowing AI to be a coauthor disregards the uniquely human experience of writing texts. This means that human authors are seen as mere producers of texts rather than rational beings engaged in a value-added and humanized learning process expressed through the paper. The relationship between the human author and the thesis is reduced to a mere result of generation rather than a result of individual human critical thinking. Second, allowing AI to be a coauthor leads to self-delusion about one’s own rationality and thus violates the responsibility to understand the world correctly. In this process of self-deception, it is not as if those who grant AI coauthor status do not realize that AI is not the same as humans; however, they self-deceivingly assume that AI has the same internal state as humans. This means that the relationship between the author and the work is no longer seen as a position to be respected, but as something probabilistic and gamified. Conclusions Finally, we discuss the potential consequences of these rationales, concluding that including AI as a coauthor implies a disregard for humanization.

Jecker et al critically analysed the predominant focus on existential risk (X-Risk) in artificial intelligence (AI) ethics, advocating for a balanced communication of AI’s risks and benefits and urging serious consideration of other urgent ethical issues alongside X-Risk.1 Building on this analysis, we argue for the necessity of acknowledging the unique attention-grabbing attributes of X-Risk and leveraging these traits to foster a comprehensive focus on AI ethics. First, we need to consider a discontinuous situation that is overlooked in the article by Jecker et al. This discontinuity refers to the phenomenon where X-Risk is perceived as dominating the discourse, yet contrary to expectations, it does not lead to a significant allocation of social resources for specific risk management and practical initiatives. In both the specific realm of ethical AI initiatives and the broader scope of AI risk management, the responses to X-Risk do not have the advantage of prioritising the allocation of resources over other related risks.2 This discrepancy suggests that, in terms of actual social resource allocation, X-Risks do not receive commensurate resources relative to the attention they attract. Unlike other types of risks, X-Risk is perceived as a distant threat, which does not correspond with actual initiatives in terms of media exposure. Despite the prominence of the longtermism view in various media and public discourse, the X-Risk of AI often serves merely as a cautionary note or opinion about the current situation. This suggests that concerns about an AI-driven catastrophe have not been effectively translated into practical initiatives. The gap between the attention drawn and …

This paper addresses how people understand Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in three ways: contrastive, functional, and transparent. We discuss the unique aspects and challenges of each and emphasize improving current XAI understanding frameworks. The Ritual Dialog Framework (RDF) is introduced as a solution for better dialog between AI creators and users, blending anthropological insights with current acceptance challenges. RDF focuses on building trust and a user-centered approach in XAI. By undertaking such an initiative, we aim to foster a thorough Understanding of XAI, capable of resolving the current issues of acceptance and recognition.