Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39526123›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024

Beyond humanism: telling response-able stories about significant otherness in human-chatbot relations.

Michael Holohan, Ruth Müller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael HolohanInstitute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ruth MüllerDepartment of Science, Technology & Society, School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI-enabled chatbots intended to build social relations with humans are becoming increasingly common in the marketplace, with millions of registered users using these chatbots as virtual companions or therapists. These chatbots make use of what is often called the "Eliza effect"-the tendency of human users to attribute human-like knowledge and understanding to a computer program. A common interpretation of this phenomenon is to consider this form of relating in terms of delusion, error, or deception, where the user misunderstands or forgets they are talking to a computer. As an alternative, we draw on the work of feminist Science and Technology Studies scholars as providing a robust and capacious tradition of thinking and engaging with human-nonhuman relationships in non-reductive ways. We closely analyze two different stories about encounters with chatbots, taking up the feminist STS challenge to attend to the agency of significant otherness in the encounter. The first is Joseph Weizenbaum's story about rejecting the ELIZA chatbot technology he designed to mimic a therapist as a monstrosity, based on his experiences watching others engage with it. The second is a story about Julie, who experiences a mental health crisis, and her chatbot Navi, as told through her descriptions of her experiences with Navi in the recent podcast

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)chatbotscompanion speciesEliza effectfeminist Science and Technology Studiessignificant otherness

Identifiers

PMID39526123
PMCPMC11543445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.