AI能否成为道德受害者？道德耐心和所有权感知在使用AI生成内容的伦理判断中的作用
Can AI be a moral victim? The role of moral patiency and ownership perceptions in ethical judgments of using AI-generated content
AI总结：
研究探讨了人们在评估AI生成内容再利用时的道德判断，发现AI生成内容被判定为不道德和抄袭的可能性较低，这归因于较低的道德耐心感知和更高的所有权归属。
摘要：
随着生成式AI的广泛应用，关于作者权和抄袭的伦理问题日益突出。本研究探讨了人们如何判断AI生成内容的再利用，重点在于道德耐心和所有权感知。在实验中，参与者评估了两篇实质相似的论文，其中原始来源被描述为由人类、AI系统或具有人名的AI代理所著。结果显示，复制AI生成的内容被认为不道德、抄袭和内疚感较低，相较于复制人类创作的内容。中介分析显示，这种宽容源于对AI造成伤害能力的较低感知（道德耐心）以及人类作者重用AI生成内容时更高的所有权归属。拟人化线索通过减少感知所有权间接影响道德判断。这些发现揭示了人们在使用AI生成内容时如何进行道德脱钩，并突显了人类与AI生成内容在伦理判断上的差异。
英文摘要：
The growing use of generative AI raises ethical concerns about authorship and plagiarism. This study examines how people judge the reuse of AI-generated content, focusing on moral patiency and ownership perceptions. In an experiment, participants evaluated two substantively similar manuscripts in which the original source was described as authored by a human, an AI system, or an AI agent with a human-like name. Results showed that copying AI-generated work was judged less unethical, less plagiaristic, and less guilt-inducing than copying human-authored work. Mediation analyses revealed that this leniency stemmed from lower perceptions of AI's capacity to suffer harm (moral patiency) and greater ownership attributed to the human writer reusing AI-generated content. Anthropomorphic cues shaped moral evaluations indirectly by reducing perceived ownership. These findings shed light on how people morally disengage when using AI-generated work and highlight differences in how ethical judgments are applied to human versus AI-created content.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
