Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41296228›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025

Addressing Autonomy Risks in Generative Chatbots with the Socratic Method.

Wencheng Lu, Zhenni Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2025. 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.

Wencheng LuSchool of Humanities, Southeast University, No.2, SEU Road, Nanjing, 211189, China. wench_lu@seu.edu.cn.ORCID 0009-0008-7573-1859
Zhenni HuSchool of Humanities, Southeast University, No.2, SEU Road, Nanjing, 211189, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle in artificial intelligence (AI) ethics. Current discussions regarding autonomy-related risks in human-AI interaction, as well as potential mitigation strategies, have mainly focused on recommendation systems and algorithmic decision-making systems. However, systematic analyses of the autonomy issues posed by newly emerging generative AI or chatbots (such as ChatGPT) remain scarce. This paper aims to bridge this gap and proposes a Socratic method-based chatbot, herein designated SocrAI, as a potential countermeasure informed by recent technological advancements. We identify two primary forms of autonomy risk associated with generative chatbots-false mental states and cognitive deskilling-and, through an examination of their underlying causes, argue that the Socratic method offers a plausible means of mitigation. The paper further assesses the feasibility of employing the Socratic method within generative chatbots to preserve and support users' autonomy and outlines the prospective implementation of SocrAI together with directions for future work. SocrAI represents a novel attempt to strengthen human agency, one that encourages users to become self-initiating inquirers who, with the assistance of AI, actively engage their abilities in the pursuit of answers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision MakingPersonal AutonomyAlgorithmsCognitionGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansRiskAutonomyChatbotGenerative AIHuman agencyThe Socratic method

Identifiers

PMID41296228
PMCPMC12657563

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.