聊天机器人在商业和科学环境中越来越普遍。他们帮助客户抱怨产品或服务或支持他们找到最佳旅行交易。其他机器人提供心理健康支持或帮助预订医疗预约。本文认为，可以洞悉用户的语言意识形态及其融洽的期望，可用于告知受众群体的语言和互动模式，并确保公平地访问机器人提供的服务。该论点的基础是三种数据的基础：与聊天机器人相互交互，促进健康约会预订，用户对其交互的内省评论以及用户的定性调查评论在与预订机器人交战后。最后，我将定义对话式AI的受众设计，并讨论如何以用户为中心的聊天机器人互动和社会语言知识的理论方法（例如融洽的理论管理）来支持受众设计。

最近十年表明，人们对机器人作为福祉教练的兴趣越来越大。但是，尚未提出针对机器人设计作为促进心理健康的教练的凝聚力和全面的准则。本文详细介绍了基于基于扎根理论方法的定性荟萃分析的设计和道德建议，该方法是通过三项以用户为中心的涉及机器人福祉教练的三个不同的以用户为中心进行的，即：（1）与参与性设计研究一起进行的。 11名参与者由两位潜在用户组成，他们与人类教练一起参加了简短的专注于解决方案的实践研究，以及不同学科的教练，（2）半结构化的个人访谈数据，这些数据来自20名参加积极心理学干预研究的参与者借助机器人福祉教练胡椒，（3）与3名积极心理学研究的参与者以及2名相关的福祉教练进行了一项参与式设计研究。在进行主题分析和定性荟萃分析之后，我们将收集到收敛性和不同主题的数据整理在一起，并从这些结果中提炼了一套设计准则和道德考虑。我们的发现可以在设计机器人心理福祉教练时考虑到关键方面的关键方面。

Intelligent agents have great potential as facilitators of group conversation among older adults. However, little is known about how to design agents for this purpose and user group, especially in terms of agent embodiment. To this end, we conducted a mixed methods study of older adults' reactions to voice and body in a group conversation facilitation agent. Two agent forms with the same underlying artificial intelligence (AI) and voice system were compared: a humanoid robot and a voice assistant. One preliminary study (total n=24) and one experimental study comparing voice and body morphologies (n=36) were conducted with older adults and an experienced human facilitator. Findings revealed that the artificiality of the agent, regardless of its form, was beneficial for the socially uncomfortable task of conversation facilitation. Even so, talkative personality types had a poorer experience with the "bodied" robot version. Design implications and supplementary reactions, especially to agent voice, are also discussed.

在数字治疗干预的背景下，例如互联网交付的认知行为治疗（ICBT）用于治疗抑郁和焦虑，广泛的研究表明，人类支持者或教练的参与如何协助接受治疗的人，改善用户参与治疗并导致更有效的健康结果而不是不受支持的干预措施。该研究旨在最大限度地提高这一人类支持的影响和结果，研究了通过AI和机器学习领域（ML）领域的最新进展提供的新机遇如何有助于有效地支持ICBT支持者的工作实践。本文报告了采访研究的详细调查结果，与15个ICBT支持者加深了解其现有的工作实践和信息需求，旨在有意义地向抑郁和焦虑治疗的背景下提供有用，可实现的ML申请。分析贡献（1）一组六个主题，总结了ICBT支持者在为其精神卫生客户提供有效，个性化反馈方面的策略和挑战;并回应这些学习，（2）对于ML方法如何帮助支持和解决挑战和信息需求，为每个主题提供具体机会。它依赖于在支持者LED客户审查实践中引入新的机器生成的数据见解的潜在社会，情感和务实含义的思考。

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

在过去的几年中，围绕种族类人体机器人的有问题实践的讨论已经上升。为了彻底理解机器人在人类机器人互动（HRI）社区中如何理解机器人的“性别” - 即如何被操纵，在哪些环境中以及其对人们的看法和人们产生哪些影响的影响，为基础建立基础。与机器人的互动 - 我们对文献进行了范围的评论。我们确定了553篇与我们从5个不同数据库中检索的评论相关的论文。审查论文的最终样本包括2005年至2021年之间的35篇论文，其中涉及3902名参与者。在本文中，我们通过报告有关其性别的目标和假设的信息（即操纵性别的定义和理由），对机器人的“性别”（即性别提示和操纵检查），对性别的定义和理由进行彻底总结这些论文。 （例如，参与者的人口统计学，受雇的机器人）及其结果（即主要和互动效应）。该评论表明，机器人的“性别”不会影响HRI的关键构建，例如可爱和接受，而是对刻板印象产生最强烈的影响。我们利用社会机器人技术和性别研究中的不同认识论背景来提供有关审查结果的全面跨学科观点，并提出了在HRI领域前进的方法。

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

The need for AI systems to provide explanations for their behaviour is now widely recognised as key to their adoption. In this paper, we examine the problem of trustworthy AI and explore what delivering this means in practice, with a focus on healthcare applications. Work in this area typically treats trustworthy AI as a problem of Human-Computer Interaction involving the individual user and an AI system. However, we argue here that this overlooks the important part played by organisational accountability in how people reason about and trust AI in socio-technical settings. To illustrate the importance of organisational accountability, we present findings from ethnographic studies of breast cancer screening and cancer treatment planning in multidisciplinary team meetings to show how participants made themselves accountable both to each other and to the organisations of which they are members. We use these findings to enrich existing understandings of the requirements for trustworthy AI and to outline some candidate solutions to the problems of making AI accountable both to individual users and organisationally. We conclude by outlining the implications of this for future work on the development of trustworthy AI, including ways in which our proposed solutions may be re-used in different application settings.

在公共危机时期，寻求信息对于人们的自我保健和福祉至关重要。广泛的研究调查了经验理解和技术解决方案，以促进受影响地区的家庭公民寻求信息。但是，建立有限的知识是为了支持需要在其东道国发生危机的国际移民。当前的论文对居住在日本和美国（n = 14）的两名中国移民（n = 14）进行了访谈研究。参与者反思了他们在共同大流行期间寻求经验的信息。反思补充了两周的自我追踪，参与者保持了相关信息寻求实践的记录。我们的数据表明，参与者经常绕开语言绕道，或访问普通话资源以获取有关其东道国疫情爆发的信息。他们还进行了战略性利用普通话信息，以进行选择性阅读，交叉检查以及对日语或英语的共同信息的上下文化解释。尽管这种做法增强了参与者对共同相关信息收集和感官的有效性，但他们有时会通过有时认识的方式使人们处于不利地位。此外，参与者缺乏对审查以移民为导向的信息的认识或偏爱，尽管该信息可用，这些信息是由东道国公共当局发布的。在这些发现的基础上，我们讨论了改善国际移民在非本地语言和文化环境中寻求共同相关信息的解决方案。我们主张包容性危机基础设施，这些基础设施将吸引以当地语言流利程度，信息素养和利用公共服务的经验的不同水平的人们。

本文详细概述了将连续学习（CL）应用于单课的人类机器人互动（HRI）会议（AVG。31 +-10分钟）的案例研究，其中机器人的心理健康教练是积极的（n = 20）参与者的心理学（PP）练习。我们介绍了互动会议后与参与者进行的简短半结构访谈记录的数据的主题分析（TA）的结果，以及对统计结果的分析，证明了参与者的个性如何影响他们如何看待机器人的方式及其互动。

Charisma is considered as one's ability to attract and potentially also influence others. Clearly, there can be considerable interest from an artificial intelligence's (AI) perspective to provide it with such skill. Beyond, a plethora of use cases opens up for computational measurement of human charisma, such as for tutoring humans in the acquisition of charisma, mediating human-to-human conversation, or identifying charismatic individuals in big social data. A number of models exist that base charisma on various dimensions, often following the idea that charisma is given if someone could and would help others. Examples include influence (could help) and affability (would help) in scientific studies or power (could help), presence, and warmth (both would help) as a popular concept. Modelling high levels in these dimensions for humanoid robots or virtual agents, seems accomplishable. Beyond, also automatic measurement appears quite feasible with the recent advances in the related fields of Affective Computing and Social Signal Processing. Here, we, thereforem present a blueprint for building machines that can appear charismatic, but also analyse the charisma of others. To this end, we first provide the psychological perspective including different models of charisma and behavioural cues of it. We then switch to conversational charisma in spoken language as an exemplary modality that is essential for human-human and human-computer conversations. The computational perspective then deals with the recognition and generation of charismatic behaviour by AI. This includes an overview of the state of play in the field and the aforementioned blueprint. We then name exemplary use cases of computational charismatic skills before switching to ethical aspects and concluding this overview and perspective on building charisma-enabled AI.

大规模的语言技术越来越多地用于与人类在不同情况下的各种形式的交流中。这些技术的一种特殊用例是对话剂，它会根据提示和查询输出自然语言文本。这种参与方式提出了许多社会和道德问题。例如，将对话剂与人类规范或价值观相结合意味着什么？它们应该与哪些规范或价值观保持一致？如何实现这一目标？在本文中，我们提出了许多步骤来帮助回答这些问题。我们首先要对对话代理人和人类对话者之间语言交流的基础进行哲学分析。然后，我们使用此分析来识别和制定理想的对话规范，这些规范可以控制人类与对话代理之间的成功语言交流。此外，我们探讨了如何使用这些规范来使对话剂与在一系列不同的话语领域中的人类价值相结合。最后，我们讨论了我们对与这些规范和价值观一致的对话代理设计的建议的实际含义。

已经开发出各种工具和实践来支持从业者识别，评估和减轻AI系统造成的公平相关危害。然而，现有研究突出了这些工具和实践的预期设计与特定背景下的使用之间的差距，包括由组织因素在塑造公平工作中发挥的作用引起的差距。在本文中，我们研究了一个这样的实践的这些差距：AI系统的分类评估，旨在揭示人口统计组之间的表现差异。通过在三个技术公司的十支队伍中进行半结构化访谈和三十三名艾尔从业人员，我们在设计分列的评估时，我们识别从业者的流程，挑战，并对支持的需求。我们发现从业者在选择绩效指标时面临挑战，识别最相关的直接利益相关者和在其上进行重点的人口统计集团，并收集其进行分类评估的数据集。更一般地说，我们识别对公平工作的影响，这些工作缺乏与直接利益相关者的订婚，优先考虑通过边缘化群体的客户，以及以规模部署AI系统的驱动器。

值得信赖的人工智能（AI）已成为一个重要的话题，因为在AI系统及其创造者中的信任已经丢失。研究人员，公司和政府具有远离技术开发，部署和监督的边缘化群体的长期和痛苦的历史。结果，这些技术对小群体的有用甚至有害。我们争辩说，渴望信任的任何AI开发，部署和监测框架必须纳入女权主义，非剥削参与性设计原则和强大，外部和持续监测和测试。我们还向考虑到透明度，公平性和问责制的可靠性方面的重要性，特别是考虑对任何值得信赖的AI系统的核心价值观的正义和转移权力。创建值得信赖的AI通过资金，支持和赋予Grassroots组织，如AI Queer等基层组织开始，因此AI领域具有多样性和纳入可信和有效地发展的可信赖AI。我们利用AI的专家知识Queer通过其多年的工作和宣传来讨论以及如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用以及沿着这些线路的危害。基于此，我们分享了对AI的性别方法，进一步提出了Queer认识论并分析它可以带来AI的好处。我们还讨论了如何在愿景中讨论如何使用此Queer认识论，提出与AI和性别多样性和隐私和酷儿数据保护相关的框架。

To address the widespread problem of uncivil behavior, many online discussion platforms employ human moderators to take action against objectionable content, such as removing it or placing sanctions on its authors. This reactive paradigm of taking action against already-posted antisocial content is currently the most common form of moderation, and has accordingly underpinned many recent efforts at introducing automation into the moderation process. Comparatively less work has been done to understand other moderation paradigms -- such as proactively discouraging the emergence of antisocial behavior rather than reacting to it -- and the role algorithmic support can play in these paradigms. In this work, we investigate such a proactive framework for moderation in a case study of a collaborative setting: Wikipedia Talk Pages. We employ a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and design components for a holistic analysis. Through interviews with moderators, we find that despite a lack of technical and social support, moderators already engage in a number of proactive moderation behaviors, such as preemptively intervening in conversations to keep them on track. Further, we explore how automation could assist with this existing proactive moderation workflow by building a prototype tool, presenting it to moderators, and examining how the assistance it provides might fit into their workflow. The resulting feedback uncovers both strengths and drawbacks of the prototype tool and suggests concrete steps towards further developing such assisting technology so it can most effectively support moderators in their existing proactive moderation workflow.

Gender/ing guides how we view ourselves, the world around us, and each other--including non-humans. Critical voices have raised the alarm about stereotyped gendering in the design of socially embodied artificial agents like voice assistants, conversational agents, and robots. Yet, little is known about how this plays out in research and to what extent. As a first step, we critically reviewed the case of Pepper, a gender-ambiguous humanoid robot. We conducted a systematic review (n=75) involving meta-synthesis and content analysis, examining how participants and researchers gendered Pepper through stated and unstated signifiers and pronoun usage. We found that ascriptions of Pepper's gender were inconsistent, limited, and at times discordant, with little evidence of conscious gendering and some indication of researcher influence on participant gendering. We offer six challenges driving the state of affairs and a practical framework coupled with a critical checklist for centering gender in research on artificial agents.

我们展示了一个讲故事机器人，通过ACT-R认知架构控制，能够采用不同的说服技术和道德阶段，同时对关于Covid-19的一些主题进行交谈。论文的主要贡献包括在对话期间，在代理程序内记忆中可用的有说服力技术的使用（如果有）使用（如果有的话）的需求驱动模型的提议。在这种模型中测试的说服技术组合从使用讲故事，以绘制技术和基于修辞的参数。据我们所知，这代表了建立一个有说服力的代理商，能够整合关于对话管理，讲故事和说服技术以及道德态度的明确接地的认知假设的混合。本文介绍了63名参与者对系统的探索性评估结果

移动服务机器人变得越来越无处不在。但是，这些机器人可能对视觉障碍者（PVI）提出潜在的可访问性问题和安全问题。我们试图探索PVI在主流移动服务机器人方面面临的挑战，并确定其需求。对他们在三个新兴机器人的经历进行了采访，接受了17个PVI：真空机器人，送货机器人和无人机。我们通过考虑其围绕机器人的不同角色（直接用户和旁观者）来全面研究PVI的机器人体验。我们的研究强调了参与者对移动服务机器人访问性，安全性和隐私问题的挑战和担忧。我们发现缺乏可访问的反馈使PVI难以精确控制，定位和跟踪机器人的状态。此外，遇到移动机器人时，旁观者感到困惑，甚至吓到参与者，并呈现安全性和隐私障碍。我们进一步提炼设计注意事项，以提供PVI的更容易访问和安全的机器人。

人工智能研究中的一个新兴主题是创建模型，以模拟特定人员的决策和行为，包括游戏玩法，文本生成和艺术表达。这些模型以对个人的量身定制的方式以及为互动而不是简单地繁殖固定的预计行为的复制方式而超越了早期的方法。我们将这些称为模拟模型，在本文中，我们开发了一个框架，以表征其日益增长的可用性所带来的道德和社会问题。我们的框架包括用于使用此类模型的许多不同方案，并考虑了对一系列不同参与者的影响，包括正在建模的目标，部署模型的操作员以及与之交互的实体。

在线众包平台使对算法输出进行评估变得容易，并提出诸如“哪个图像更好，A或B？”之类的问题的调查，在视觉和图形研究论文中的这些“用户研究”的扩散导致了增加匆忙进行的研究充其量是草率且无知的，并且可能有害和误导。我们认为，在计算机视觉和图形论文中的用户研究的设计和报告需要更多关注。为了提高从业者的知识并提高用户研究的可信度和可复制性，我们提供了用户体验研究（UXR），人类计算机互动（HCI）和相关领域的方法论的概述。我们讨论了目前在计算机视觉和图形研究中未利用的基础用户研究方法（例如，需要调查），但可以为研究项目提供宝贵的指导。我们为有兴趣探索其他UXR方法的读者提供了进一步的指导。最后，我们描述了研究界的更广泛的开放问题和建议。我们鼓励作者和审稿人都认识到，并非每项研究贡献都需要用户研究，而且根本没有研究比不小心进行的研究更好。