Search for: All records

Abstract Machines powered by artificial intelligence increasingly permeate social networks with control over resources. However, machine allocation behavior might offer little benefit to human welfare over networks when it ignores the specific network mechanism of social exchange. Here, we perform an online experiment involving simple networks of humans (496 participants in 120 networks) playing a resource-sharing game to which we sometimes add artificial agents (bots). The experiment examines two opposite policies of machine allocation behavior:reciprocal bots, which share all resources reciprocally; andstingy bots, which share no resources at all. We also manipulate the bot’s network position. We show that reciprocal bots make little changes in unequal resource distribution among people. On the other hand, stingy bots balance structural power and improve collective welfare in human groups when placed in a specific network position, although they bestow no wealth on people. Our findings highlight the need to incorporate the human nature of reciprocity and relational interdependence in designing machine behavior in sharing networks. Conscientious machines do not always work for human welfare, depending on the network structure where they interact. 

Machines increasingly decide over the allocation of resources or tasks among people resulting in what we call Machine Allocation Behavior. People respond strongly to how other people or machines allocate resources. However, the implications for human relationships of algorithmic allocations of, for example, tasks among crowd workers, annual bonuses among employees, or a robot’s gaze among members of a group entering a store remains unclear. We leverage a novel research paradigm to study the impact of machine allocation behavior on fairness perceptions, interpersonal perceptions, and individual performance. In a 2 × 3 between-subject design that manipulates how the allocation agent is presented (human vs. artificial intelligent [AI] system) and the allocation type (receiving less vs. equal vs. more resources), we find that group members who receive more resources perceive their counterpart as less dominant when the allocation originates from an AI as opposed to a human. Our findings have implications on our understanding of the impact of machine allocation behavior on interpersonal dynamics and on the way in which we understand human responses towards this type of machine behavior.