AI 中文总结
本研究通过初步实验发现，强制使用AI虽不改变伦理决策的最终结论，但会促使决策者考虑更广泛的视角，提示AI可能影响决策前的推理过程。
AI 中文摘要
生成式人工智能（AI）越来越多地被用于支持人类决策，但关于AI如何影响最终判断之前的推理过程，受到的关注较少。本初步研究探讨了不同的AI使用条件是否与伦理决策过程中推理广度的差异相关。29名参与者在三种条件之一完成了一个伦理困境：禁止使用AI（n=10）、可选使用AI（n=10）或强制使用AI（n=9）。回答由三位独立的盲审编码员使用两项探索性指标进行评估：反驳论点多样性得分（CDS）和视角多样性指数（PDI）。各条件下的参与者总体上得出了相似的伦理结论，最常倾向于披露和客户保护。然而，在强制使用AI条件下的参与者考虑了更广泛的视角，包括法律、监管、组织、技术和伦理观点。在三个条件之间观察到了PDI得分在统计上显著的总体差异，而CDS的差异在统计上不显著。这些发现表明，生成式AI可能不一定改变最终的伦理判断，但可能与在达成这些判断之前更广泛地探索视角相关。鉴于样本量较小，这些发现应谨慎解读，并在更大规模的研究中加以检验。
英文摘要
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support human decision-making, yet less attention has been paid to how AI may influence the reasoning processes that precede final judgments. This pilot study explored whether different AI-use conditions were associated with differences in reasoning breadth during ethical decision-making. Twenty-nine participants completed an ethical dilemma under one of three conditions: AI-Prohibited (n = 10), AI-Optional (n = 10), or AI-Mandatory (n = 9). Responses were evaluated by three independent blind coders using two exploratory measures: the Counterargument Diversity Score (CDS) and Perspective Diversity Index (PDI). Participants across conditions generally converged on similar ethical conclusions, most commonly favoring disclosure and customer protection. However, participants in the AI-Mandatory condition considered a broader range of perspectives, including legal, regulatory, organizational, technical, and ethical viewpoints. A statistically significant overall difference in PDI scores was observed across the three conditions, whereas differences in CDS were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that generative AI may not necessarily alter final ethical judgments but may be associated with broader exploration of perspectives prior to reaching those judgments. Given the small sample size, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and examined in larger studies.
Comments30 pages, pilot study
