Relational Norms for Human-AI Cooperation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 5.
9 papers.
- 2025Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AIcited by 12
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technologycited by 8
- 2025Full-Stack Alignment: Co-Aligning AI and Institutions with Thick Models of Valuecited by 6
- 2025Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approachcited by 4
- 2025Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement of Machine Companionship: A Scoping Reviewcited by 1
- 2026Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interactioncited by 1
- 2026Profiling learners' affective engagement: Emotion AI, intercultural pragmatics, and language learningcited by 0
- 2026Method, Mind, and Morality: How People Make Sense of Artificial Intelligencecited by 0
- 2026Right Words, Wrong Moment: A Clinician-Grounded Analysis of Distress in 19,930 Conversations between Young People and ChatGPTcited by 0
- 2026Right Words, Wrong Moment: A Clinician-Grounded Analysis of Distress in 19,930 Conversations between Young People and ChatGPT28 Sep 2026
- 2026Method, Mind, and Morality: How People Make Sense of Artificial Intelligence25 Aug 2026
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology31 Mar 2026
- 2026Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction24 Mar 2026
- 2026Profiling learners' affective engagement: Emotion AI, intercultural pragmatics, and language learning20 Mar 2026
- 2025Full-Stack Alignment: Co-Aligning AI and Institutions with Thick Models of Value3 Dec 2025
- 2025Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI8 Sep 2025
- 2025Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement of Machine Companionship: A Scoping Review22 Jun 2025
- 2025Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach3 May 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Why human-AI relationships need socioaffective alignment
- 2026Imperfectly Cooperative Human-AI Interactions: Comparing the Impacts of Human and AI Attributes in Simulated and User Studies
- 2026Normative Common Ground Replication (NormCoRe): Replication-by-Translation for Studying Norms in Multi-Agent AI
- 2026Why AI Alignment Failure Is Structural: Learned Human Interaction Structures and AGI as an Endogenous Evolutionary Shock
- 2024Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment
- 2025Gricean Norms as a Basis for Effective Collaboration
- 2026ExpressionCueLens: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Human-AI Companion Conversations on Social Media ↗
- 2026Beyond Right and Wrong: Evaluating Second-order Social Reasoning in Large Language Models