5 ms·

The "computers are social actors" theory no longer applies to desktop computers

56 points by vasco 3y ago

cobaltoxide 3y ago
Abstract The Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) theory is the most important theoretical contribution that has shaped the field of human–computer interaction. The theory states that humans interact with computers as if they are human, and is the cornerstone on which all social human–machine communication (e.g., chatbots, robots, virtual agents) are designed. However, the theory itself dates back to the early 1990s, and, since then, technology and its place in society has evolved and changed drastically. Here we show, via a direct replication of the original study, that participants no longer interact with desktop computers as if they are human. This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology, an important concept that needs to be taken into account when designing and researching human–computer interaction.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Was the original paper ever replicated? Cause if not, that’s too strong a conclusion. A simpler explanation could be that the original paper got something wrong and wasn’t replicable.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  "This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology[..]" I think we can see this unfold in real time with large language model based chatbots like ChatGPT. First they seem almost human and the initial reaction is to treat them like that. Always say "Thank you!" and potentially get angry at them for being wrong. It doesn't take long though, to realize that the bot is a bot and even if it speaks human language it behaves significantly different from a real human. Then the human behavior starts to change as well and the bot is treated differently.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Except we see to see behaviors in asking questions to LLMs where we get different/better responses if we ask "please".
    - chihuahua 3y ago
      And also, we get better answers from LLMs for solving captchas if we claim that the hard-to-decipher letters were written on our dear grandmother's Christmas ornament. I find this quite amusing.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      This makes sense if you think about chatGPT as a ML model and not as a sentient AI. Its training data would show that asking nicely elicits better answers.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        I mean should I think of my mother as a ML human and not a sentient one? Why does asking nicely work on either?
        l33t7332273 3y ago
        If I set up a linux box with the root password “please” I don’t think you would describe that as sentient.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mock-possum 3y ago
  Wonder whether 1.) technical proficiency and 2.) age of introduction to computer would make a difference Because totally anecdotally, I mean it could have been subconscious, but I never remember treating a computer that way. It’s always been… I dunno, a machine.
kmeisthax 3y ago
>One main reason why no direct replication has been conducted before now, is that the proposed underlying psychological basis for the CASA Theory suggested that a short period of time (e.g., 30 years) should have no influence on the effect. Specifically, the original authors postulated that the reason we respond to social computers as if they have an awareness is because our brains are not evolving at the same rate as technology; our brains are still adapted to our early ancestors’ environment4. I find this hypothesis... shockingly naive, bordering on psuedoscientific. Brains are there to learn behaviors faster than evolution can. Neuroplasticity (as well as just the general experience of being human) means that brains can un- and re-learn things as needed rather than being stuck with the same static behaviors that, say, a plant might have. No surprise the CASA theory got falsified, and good on the researchers for doing the necessary falsification work.
- amelius 3y ago
  Perhaps they were talking about test subjects that haven't yet been exposed to computers.
  - mrdatawolf 3y ago
    "Nass and Reeves make a point of stating in their methodology that all the participants 'have extensive experience with computers … they were all daily users, and many even did their own programming'"
- KMnO4 3y ago
  My goodness, how did that pass peer review? Postulating that evolution is strictly the result natural selection (ie our ancestral chain is solely responsible for what we are capable of doing) is such an archaic view. We don’t have to “randomly mutate and wait for the inferior genes to drop out of the gene pool” to see human adaption, and there are a plethora of counterexamples to remove any doubt.
- patcon 3y ago
  I say this with utmost respect (and a little bit of devil's advocacy heh :) -- I might suggest your critique is a little too self-assured. Disclaimer: Not a neuroscientist, but a biochemist *shrug* We recognize faces easily due to deep wiring. Some linguistic behavior is deeply rooted as well, e.g., our ability to be immersed in written or visual narratives of experiences that are not our own ("aesthetic illusion") is an evolved extension of "play". Both of these are related to deep brain structures, not just culture. (Though HOW we play is certainly also in the realm of culture.) Lots of conclusions about brains can be rooted in there being really foundational neural structures that can't simply be rewired by culture. Just because culture exists, it doesn't mean that conclusions rooted in biology are irrational. And assuming the effect was reproduced over many cultures (which perhaps it was not) then it would be fair to assume it was rooted in some deeper system. tldr- I feel you are falling for hindsight bias. Respectfully, I suggest we're all best-served to navigate this world by cultivating a healthy dose of humility, and I say that more for all the self-assured readers upvoting you for making a dunk. I'm guessing the truth is somewhere in between :)
layer8 3y ago
Sounds more like this is just an exhibit of the replication crisis. I don’t remember people interacting with computers as if they are human in the 1990s — at least the people who actually did interact with computers on a regular basis.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I mean, it might have been before your time, but people have been doing this since the 60's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
  - layer8 3y ago
    I’m familiar with this of course, but it’s conditioned on a chat program that actually tries to appear human, and the credulous reactions to ELIZA were mostly lay people who otherwise hadn’t used computers before. Likewise, some people — famously including some software engineers — believe that certain AI chatbots are sentient, which also doesn’t falsify the linked study. (This argument holds regardless of whether you consider AI chatbots to be sentient or not.)
  - crote 3y ago
    But what does that actually show? Humans have been communicating with other humans via text for ages. Fooling a human that the person on the other side of text communication is also a human isn't too hard, especially when they are not looking for signs of deception. Even if they are aware it is a computer, humans will anthropomorphize literally anything. Animals are obvious, but we'll even extent it to simple objects like cars. We'll talk to them with zero expectation of any response or sign of sentience. It's a suspension of disbelief, really. It's not any different than kids playing Cops And Robbers, people performing a theatre play, or playing a board game with friends. CASA seems to suggest that humans will view any computer interaction as one between two humans. That's not just interacting with chat bots, that's also something like opening the Configuration Panel. If you ask me, that's a massive stretch!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
An alternate hypothesis is that CASA is still correct, but that people start interacting with computers in a less than compassionate manner. E.g. people may start to see themselves as "wealthy" compared to the computer (or whatever the general mechanism of a reduction in empathy): https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_money_changes_the_way_you_think_and_feel https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_money_chan...
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  It's still a social actor, but I'm higher ranking, it's a peasant? Interesting, but hard to test.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Maybe in the future for computers that are expected to make decisions directly affecting the welfare of humans. I think we would start to see this in people defending the decision of an AI in arguments with other people (such as for automated vehicles). What it ultimately turns out to be I don't know.
dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
Seems like possibly bad timing giving advances in AI. ChatGPT/GitHub Copilot can already be used to interface with a computer (there's some git repos floating about if one looks), I think it's only a matter of time before someone makes an actually useful AI interface.
- make3 3y ago
  tool use is already that.
- danaris 3y ago
  If you think it seems like bad timing, I suggest you read closer: They very specifically say that emerging technologies (like the recent advances in ML systems) are still subject to the CASA theory.
  - rossdavidh 3y ago
    My 18yo daughter, not tech illiterate but not particularly interested in programming, has mentioned to me that she found AI-generated artwork really interesting for about a month, but it quickly became boring. I wonder if it comes from a "wow what kind of creative person could come up with something that unusual?" initial response, which quickly gives way to boredom as one realizes that there is no creative person behind there? Also, I wonder if the period before "emerging" technologies stop seeming interesting (e.g. like another person) is speeding up over time, like so much else?
    - layer8 3y ago
      I suspect it’s more because most AI-generated artwork looks same-ish after a while. At least that’s my own perception.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      When do other people stop being interesting? For example in lines of work where individuals meet large numbers of the public over extended periods of time, how long does it take before the average interaction is 'meh'?
rezmason 3y ago
In 2006 I shipped my iBook to Apple to fix its screen bezel. I made a Flash animation where my laptop cheekily described its issue, thanking the technicians in advance, and I made it launch on startup. The iBook came back with a factory reset. I restored from backup and stopped anthropomorphizing my computers.
russellbeattie 3y ago
Humans seem to naturally anthropomorphize anything which exhibits systematic yet unpredictable or capricious behavior: Pets, machines, mountains, oceans, weather, planets, ex-wives, etc. We give them names and project a sense of agency to them, because they must obviously act certain ways some times on purpose. It's the reason we have gods, fairies and superstitions. It's why we name our cars and our storms. It's just what we do. So to me, it makes sense that as we understand something more, being able to predict what and why it does something, the less likely we are to think of it as having some sort of inner being.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > So to me, it makes sense that as we understand something more, being able to predict what and why it does something, the less likely we are to think of it as having some sort of inner being. Pretty much the opposite with respect to pets and humans we are acquainted or intimate with. The sheer speed with which computers change (the modern automated update cycles) might be a counter to any impulse we have to anthropomorphize them. Even with animals we are much more likely to anthropomorphize longer-living animals than shorter living ones. This could even be something like a survival mechanism - don't become emotionally attached to something with you only a brief while.
mvdtnz 3y ago
I've never heard this theory but it just sounds incredibly stupid and unrealistic to me. The kind of thing some academic nonce who never stepped foot off a university campus would come up with. I don't treat any computer I've ever owned like it was a "social actor". Computers are tools.
- timnetworks 3y ago
  I feel the same way, but watch on as others interact with their workstations in a very linear fashion. It is always difficult and sometimes impossible to get them to take a step back and think about it. These are the same people that click the big green Download button. These are the same people that save to the cloud by accident. These are the same people that don't understand what a default printer means. The number of these people is not decreasing.
voldacar 3y ago
Most rigorous social science theory

56 points by vasco 3y ago

Abstract The Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) theory is the most important theoretical contribution that has shaped the field of human–computer interaction. The theory states that humans interact with computers as if they are human, and is the cornerstone on which all social human–machine communication (e.g., chatbots, robots, virtual agents) are designed. However, the theory itself dates back to the early 1990s, and, since then, technology and its place in society has evolved and changed drastically. Here we show, via a direct replication of the original study, that participants no longer interact with desktop computers as if they are human. This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology, an important concept that needs to be taken into account when designing and researching human–computer interaction.

vlovich123 3y ago
Was the original paper ever replicated? Cause if not, that’s too strong a conclusion. A simpler explanation could be that the original paper got something wrong and wasn’t replicable.
weinzierl 3y ago
"This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology[..]" I think we can see this unfold in real time with large language model based chatbots like ChatGPT. First they seem almost human and the initial reaction is to treat them like that. Always say "Thank you!" and potentially get angry at them for being wrong. It doesn't take long though, to realize that the bot is a bot and even if it speaks human language it behaves significantly different from a real human. Then the human behavior starts to change as well and the bot is treated differently.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Except we see to see behaviors in asking questions to LLMs where we get different/better responses if we ask "please".
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    And also, we get better answers from LLMs for solving captchas if we claim that the hard-to-decipher letters were written on our dear grandmother's Christmas ornament. I find this quite amusing.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    This makes sense if you think about chatGPT as a ML model and not as a sentient AI. Its training data would show that asking nicely elicits better answers.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I mean should I think of my mother as a ML human and not a sentient one? Why does asking nicely work on either?
      - l33t7332273 3y ago
        If I set up a linux box with the root password “please” I don’t think you would describe that as sentient.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mock-possum 3y ago
Wonder whether 1.) technical proficiency and 2.) age of introduction to computer would make a difference Because totally anecdotally, I mean it could have been subconscious, but I never remember treating a computer that way. It’s always been… I dunno, a machine.

kmeisthax 3y ago

>One main reason why no direct replication has been conducted before now, is that the proposed underlying psychological basis for the CASA Theory suggested that a short period of time (e.g., 30 years) should have no influence on the effect. Specifically, the original authors postulated that the reason we respond to social computers as if they have an awareness is because our brains are not evolving at the same rate as technology; our brains are still adapted to our early ancestors’ environment4. I find this hypothesis... shockingly naive, bordering on psuedoscientific. Brains are there to learn behaviors faster than evolution can. Neuroplasticity (as well as just the general experience of being human) means that brains can un- and re-learn things as needed rather than being stuck with the same static behaviors that, say, a plant might have. No surprise the CASA theory got falsified, and good on the researchers for doing the necessary falsification work.

amelius 3y ago
Perhaps they were talking about test subjects that haven't yet been exposed to computers.
- mrdatawolf 3y ago
  "Nass and Reeves make a point of stating in their methodology that all the participants 'have extensive experience with computers … they were all daily users, and many even did their own programming'"
KMnO4 3y ago
My goodness, how did that pass peer review? Postulating that evolution is strictly the result natural selection (ie our ancestral chain is solely responsible for what we are capable of doing) is such an archaic view. We don’t have to “randomly mutate and wait for the inferior genes to drop out of the gene pool” to see human adaption, and there are a plethora of counterexamples to remove any doubt.
patcon 3y ago
I say this with utmost respect (and a little bit of devil's advocacy heh :) -- I might suggest your critique is a little too self-assured. Disclaimer: Not a neuroscientist, but a biochemist *shrug* We recognize faces easily due to deep wiring. Some linguistic behavior is deeply rooted as well, e.g., our ability to be immersed in written or visual narratives of experiences that are not our own ("aesthetic illusion") is an evolved extension of "play". Both of these are related to deep brain structures, not just culture. (Though HOW we play is certainly also in the realm of culture.) Lots of conclusions about brains can be rooted in there being really foundational neural structures that can't simply be rewired by culture. Just because culture exists, it doesn't mean that conclusions rooted in biology are irrational. And assuming the effect was reproduced over many cultures (which perhaps it was not) then it would be fair to assume it was rooted in some deeper system. tldr- I feel you are falling for hindsight bias. Respectfully, I suggest we're all best-served to navigate this world by cultivating a healthy dose of humility, and I say that more for all the self-assured readers upvoting you for making a dunk. I'm guessing the truth is somewhere in between :)

layer8 3y ago

Sounds more like this is just an exhibit of the replication crisis. I don’t remember people interacting with computers as if they are human in the 1990s — at least the people who actually did interact with computers on a regular basis.

pixl97 3y ago
I mean, it might have been before your time, but people have been doing this since the 60's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
- layer8 3y ago
  I’m familiar with this of course, but it’s conditioned on a chat program that actually tries to appear human, and the credulous reactions to ELIZA were mostly lay people who otherwise hadn’t used computers before. Likewise, some people — famously including some software engineers — believe that certain AI chatbots are sentient, which also doesn’t falsify the linked study. (This argument holds regardless of whether you consider AI chatbots to be sentient or not.)
- crote 3y ago
  But what does that actually show? Humans have been communicating with other humans via text for ages. Fooling a human that the person on the other side of text communication is also a human isn't too hard, especially when they are not looking for signs of deception. Even if they are aware it is a computer, humans will anthropomorphize literally anything. Animals are obvious, but we'll even extent it to simple objects like cars. We'll talk to them with zero expectation of any response or sign of sentience. It's a suspension of disbelief, really. It's not any different than kids playing Cops And Robbers, people performing a theatre play, or playing a board game with friends. CASA seems to suggest that humans will view any computer interaction as one between two humans. That's not just interacting with chat bots, that's also something like opening the Configuration Panel. If you ask me, that's a massive stretch!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

An alternate hypothesis is that CASA is still correct, but that people start interacting with computers in a less than compassionate manner. E.g. people may start to see themselves as "wealthy" compared to the computer (or whatever the general mechanism of a reduction in empathy): https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_money_changes_the_way_you_think_and_feel https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_money_chan...

rossdavidh 3y ago
It's still a social actor, but I'm higher ranking, it's a peasant? Interesting, but hard to test.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Maybe in the future for computers that are expected to make decisions directly affecting the welfare of humans. I think we would start to see this in people defending the decision of an AI in arguments with other people (such as for automated vehicles). What it ultimately turns out to be I don't know.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago

Seems like possibly bad timing giving advances in AI. ChatGPT/GitHub Copilot can already be used to interface with a computer (there's some git repos floating about if one looks), I think it's only a matter of time before someone makes an actually useful AI interface.

make3 3y ago
tool use is already that.
danaris 3y ago
If you think it seems like bad timing, I suggest you read closer: They very specifically say that emerging technologies (like the recent advances in ML systems) are still subject to the CASA theory.
- rossdavidh 3y ago
  My 18yo daughter, not tech illiterate but not particularly interested in programming, has mentioned to me that she found AI-generated artwork really interesting for about a month, but it quickly became boring. I wonder if it comes from a "wow what kind of creative person could come up with something that unusual?" initial response, which quickly gives way to boredom as one realizes that there is no creative person behind there? Also, I wonder if the period before "emerging" technologies stop seeming interesting (e.g. like another person) is speeding up over time, like so much else?
  - layer8 3y ago
    I suspect it’s more because most AI-generated artwork looks same-ish after a while. At least that’s my own perception.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    When do other people stop being interesting? For example in lines of work where individuals meet large numbers of the public over extended periods of time, how long does it take before the average interaction is 'meh'?

rezmason 3y ago

In 2006 I shipped my iBook to Apple to fix its screen bezel. I made a Flash animation where my laptop cheekily described its issue, thanking the technicians in advance, and I made it launch on startup. The iBook came back with a factory reset. I restored from backup and stopped anthropomorphizing my computers.

russellbeattie 3y ago

Humans seem to naturally anthropomorphize anything which exhibits systematic yet unpredictable or capricious behavior: Pets, machines, mountains, oceans, weather, planets, ex-wives, etc. We give them names and project a sense of agency to them, because they must obviously act certain ways some times on purpose. It's the reason we have gods, fairies and superstitions. It's why we name our cars and our storms. It's just what we do. So to me, it makes sense that as we understand something more, being able to predict what and why it does something, the less likely we are to think of it as having some sort of inner being.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> So to me, it makes sense that as we understand something more, being able to predict what and why it does something, the less likely we are to think of it as having some sort of inner being. Pretty much the opposite with respect to pets and humans we are acquainted or intimate with. The sheer speed with which computers change (the modern automated update cycles) might be a counter to any impulse we have to anthropomorphize them. Even with animals we are much more likely to anthropomorphize longer-living animals than shorter living ones. This could even be something like a survival mechanism - don't become emotionally attached to something with you only a brief while.

mvdtnz 3y ago

I've never heard this theory but it just sounds incredibly stupid and unrealistic to me. The kind of thing some academic nonce who never stepped foot off a university campus would come up with. I don't treat any computer I've ever owned like it was a "social actor". Computers are tools.

timnetworks 3y ago
I feel the same way, but watch on as others interact with their workstations in a very linear fashion. It is always difficult and sometimes impossible to get them to take a step back and think about it. These are the same people that click the big green Download button. These are the same people that save to the cloud by accident. These are the same people that don't understand what a default printer means. The number of these people is not decreasing.

voldacar 3y ago

Most rigorous social science theory