发表机构
National Taiwan University; University of Bamberg（国立台湾大学; 班贝格大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究通过1500人实验发现，仅披露AI身份不影响聊天机器人说服力，额外披露其说服意图可将效果减半，为说服性AI监管提供了新方向。
AI 中文摘要
AI生成内容和AI赋能系统在公共传播中的作用日益增强，促使监管机构要求明确披露内容来源及AI参与情况，但此类披露的效果仍不确定。本研究测试两种披露方式对AI聊天机器人说服力的影响，开展预先注册的实验，1500名英国成年人与一款针对60项政策议题之一的说服性聊天机器人进行简短对话，所有参与者使用的聊天机器人完全相同。研究随机分配参与者接收的披露内容：无披露（对照组）、突出显示正在与AI交互的披露（T1），或该披露加上聊天机器人的说服意图及指令（T2）。对照组中，聊天机器人在100分制量表上使态度转变12.6分；AI身份披露组的效果与无披露组几乎相当，态度转变为13.1分；而额外的意图披露将说服效果削减约一半，降至6.3分，同时使参与者认为该活动的方法可接受度更低，并支持对其施加更严厉的处罚。对于直接的聊天机器人交互，仅披露AI身份不会对其影响力产生有意义的影响；当前规则强调系统是什么，而本研究结果表明，说服性AI的监管还必须解决系统试图做什么的问题。
英文摘要
The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.
Comments30 pages including Supplementary Information
