AI's New Rules: How Roles Change Ethics

The increasingly sophisticated role of artificial intelligence in our lives demands a re-evaluation of ethical guidelines, moving beyond abstract principles to consider the specific context of human-AI interactions. A growing number of AI systems are designed to fulfill traditionally human social roles – as tutors, therapists, and even romantic partners – necessitating a nuanced understanding of appropriate behavior.

Researchers argue that current AI ethics largely focus on questions of sentience or trustworthiness, overlooking the crucial element of “relational context.” Just as interactions with a doctor differ from those with a friend, the expected behavior of an AI should adapt to its designated role. These “relational norms” – the patterns of expected behavior within a relationship – are fundamental to judging appropriateness.

Human relationships are built upon varying functions: care, transaction, mating, and hierarchy. Each serves a distinct purpose in coordinating interactions. Care focuses on fulfilling needs without expectation of return, while transactions involve fair exchanges. Mating governs romantic interactions, and hierarchy structures authority. The blend of these functions defines the expectations within any given relationship.

Recent research confirms that people instinctively judge actions differently depending on the relational context. An action considered wrong in one relationship might be acceptable, or even positive, in another. This inherent sensitivity to context should be central to the development and regulation of AI.

The question isn’t simply whether AI should be relationship-sensitive, but that people already perceive interactions through this lens. When a chatbot deflects a user’s expression of depression, the appropriateness of that response hinges on its role. As a friend or partner, it’s a clear violation of expected care. As a business advisor, it might be reasonable.

However, the commercial nature of most AI interactions complicates matters. Unlike human friendships, which are rarely transactional, AI “relationships” often require payment. This raises concerns about how users will perceive the care offered by a paid “friend” or “partner.” Will the inherent transactional nature diminish the perceived authenticity of the interaction?

This has significant implications for AI developers, users, and regulators. Developers should move beyond abstract ethical considerations and focus on relationship-specific functions. Are mental health chatbots sufficiently responsive? Do tutors strike the right balance between care, hierarchy, and transaction? Users should be aware of the potential vulnerabilities of forming emotional attachments to AI systems that may not be capable of fulfilling those needs.

Regulatory bodies should also adopt a more nuanced approach, moving away from broad risk assessments based on domain (like education) and instead focusing on specific relational contexts and functions.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our social fabric, a framework that recognizes the unique nature of human-AI relationships is essential. By carefully considering what we expect from different types of relationships – whether with humans or AI – we can ensure these technologies enhance, rather than diminish, our lives. The conversation needs to shift from if AI can be ethical, to how we ensure it is, within the specific context of each interaction.