Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T15:43:52.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How cultural framing can bias our beliefs about robots and artificial intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Jeff M. Stibel Open the ORCID record for Jeff M. Stibel [Opens in a new window]  and
H. Clark Barrett Open the ORCID record for H. Clark Barrett [Opens in a new window]
Jeff M. Stibel
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA Jeff@BryantStibel.com
H. Clark Barrett
Affiliation:
Center for Behavior, Evolution and Culture, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Barrett@ucla.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clark and Fischer argue that humans treat social artifacts as depictions. In contrast, theories of distributed cognition suggest that there is no clear line separating artifacts from agents, and artifacts can possess agency. The difference is likely a result of cultural framing. As technology and artificial intelligence grow more sophisticated, the distinction between depiction and agency will blur.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e46
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, H. C., Todd, P. M., Miller, G. F., & Blythe, P. W. (2005). Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: A cross-cultural study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSilva, J. M., Traniello, J. F., Claxton, A. G., & Fannin, L. D. (2021). When & why did human brains decrease in size? A new change-point analysis & insights from brain evolution in ants. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 742639. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naıve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, P., Martin, F., Taylor-Clarke, M., Jeannerod, M., & Franck, N. (2003). Awareness of action in schizophrenia. Neuroreport, 14(7), 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000073684.00308.c0Google ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, M. (2022). After Google chatbot becomes “sentient,” MIT professor says Alexa could too. New York Post, Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2022/06/13/mit-prof-says-alexa-could-become-sentient-like-google-chatbot/Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2008). Beads for a plastic mind: The “blind man's stick” (BMS) hypothesis & the active nature of material culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(3), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774308000449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2020). Thinking as “thinging”: Psychology with things. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419873349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruff, C. B. (2005). Mechanical determinants of bone form: Insights from skeletal remains. Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions, 5(3), 202–212..Google ScholarPubMed
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stibel, J. M. (2021). Decreases in brain size & encephalization in anatomically modern humans. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 96(2), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Heiligenberg, F. M., Orlov, T., Macdonald, S. N., Duff, E. P., Henderson Slater, D., Beckmann, C. F., … Makin, T. R. (2018). Artificial limb representation in amputees. Brain, 141(5), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Heiligenberg, F. M., Yeung, N., Brugger, P., Culham, J. C., & Makin, T. R. (2017). Adaptable categorization of hands and tools in prosthesis users. Psychological Science, 28(3), 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616685869CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed