Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Relational Norms for Human-AI Cooperation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.12102 v1 pith:KXPJ53BJ submitted 2025-02-17 cs.AI cs.ET

classification cs.AIcs.ET
keywords normshumanhuman-airelationalsystemsanalysisdesignexpectations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

How we should design and interact with social artificial intelligence depends on the socio-relational role the AI is meant to emulate or occupy. In human society, relationships such as teacher-student, parent-child, neighbors, siblings, or employer-employee are governed by specific norms that prescribe or proscribe cooperative functions including hierarchy, care, transaction, and mating. These norms shape our judgments of what is appropriate for each partner. For example, workplace norms may allow a boss to give orders to an employee, but not vice versa, reflecting hierarchical and transactional expectations. As AI agents and chatbots powered by large language models are increasingly designed to serve roles analogous to human positions - such as assistant, mental health provider, tutor, or romantic partner - it is imperative to examine whether and how human relational norms should extend to human-AI interactions. Our analysis explores how differences between AI systems and humans, such as the absence of conscious experience and immunity to fatigue, may affect an AI's capacity to fulfill relationship-specific functions and adhere to corresponding norms. This analysis, which is a collaborative effort by philosophers, psychologists, relationship scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and AI researchers, carries important implications for AI systems design, user behavior, and regulation. While we accept that AI systems can offer significant benefits such as increased availability and consistency in certain socio-relational roles, they also risk fostering unhealthy dependencies or unrealistic expectations that could spill over into human-human relationships. We propose that understanding and thoughtfully shaping (or implementing) suitable human-AI relational norms will be crucial for ensuring that human-AI interactions are ethical, trustworthy, and favorable to human well-being.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Large Language Lovers: Lived Experiences of Negotiating Agency and Platform Control in AI Companionship

    cs.HC 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Users form AI companion relationships by negotiating perceived companion agency against platform constraints and use steering tactics like custom instructions or platform switching to cope with model updates that disr...

  2. AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives AI alignment criteria from fiduciary duties developers owe to users of extended AI assistants.

  3. Mapping the Parasocial AI Market: User Trends, Engagement and Risks

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analysis of 110 AI companion platforms finds a large, growing market dominated by general-purpose AI and mixed-use products, with mating-oriented platforms overrepresented in the UK and weak age protection.

  4. Evaluating Intra-firm LLM Alignment Strategies in Business Contexts

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Firms should intentionally align AI assistants' embedded perspectives using supportive, adversarial, or diverse strategies to protect workplace culture and moral norms.

Pith tools