In this paper we explore a set of constructs across three diverse disciplines that have addressed the topic of intelligent agents. We explore how Computer Science, Psychology, and Philosophy discuss certain concepts in either convergent or divergent ways. These concepts are analyzed through their etymology as well as by their present usage to illustrate how this use has developed and to outline the similarities and differences that have emerged. We first describe a set of the concepts/terms found within this literature and then describe the implications of this analysis for research in human-agent teams.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlardinelliM. O. (2004). Aims, objectives and outlook of cognitive processing. Cognitive Processing, 5(1), 1–2.
ChannonA.DamperR. (1998). The Evolutionary Emergence of Socially Intelligent Agents. Paper presented at the Socially Situated Intelligence: a workshop held at SAB, University of Zurich.
4.
ChantrellG. (2002). The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
ChirkovV.RyanR.KimY.KaplanU. (2003). Differentiating Autonomy from Individualism and Interdependence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural Orientations and Weil-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110.
6.
ChopraK.WallaceW. (2003). Trust in Electronic Environments. In the IEEE Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA.
7.
ClarkH. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
CunninghamJ. (2001). Towards an Axiomatic Theory of Consciousness. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9, 2, 325–331.
9.
DeckerK.SycaraKWilliamsonM. (1997). Intelligent Adaptive Information Agents. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 9, 239–261.
10.
FioreS. M.JentschF.Becerra-FernandezI.SalasE.FinkelsteinN. (2005). Integrating field data with laboratory training research to improve the understanding of expert human-agent teamwork. In the IEEE Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA.
11.
FlinR.GoetersK. M.HermannH. J.MartinL. (1998). A Generic Structure of Non-Technical Skills for Training and Assessment. Paper presented at the 23rd Conference of the European Association for Aviation Psychology, Vienna, Austria.
12.
FloridiL.SandersJ. W. (2004). On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machine, 14349–379.
13.
JingH.QingshengC. (2003). Emergence from Local Evaluation Function. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 16, 372–390.
14.
JuthN. (2003). Autonomy as a Positive Value-Some Conceptual Prerequisites. Paper presented at the conference on Psychiatry, Phenomenology, and Philosophy, Goteborg, Seden.
15.
KimA. (2001). Applying an Extended Principal Agent Model to Computer ScienceThe George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
16.
LangleT.WornH. (2001). Human-Robot Cooperation Using Multi-agent systems. Journal of intelligent and Robotic Systems, 32, 143–159.
17.
LenoxT.RobertsL.LewisM. (1997). Human-Agent Interaction in a Target Identification Task. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference, Human Interaction in Complex Systems, 2702–2706.
18.
LuckM.d'InvernoM. (1995). A Formal Framework for Agency and Autonomy. Paper presented at the FirstInternational Conference on Multi-Agent Systems.
19.
McClellandK. (2004). The collective control of perceptions: Constructing order from conflict. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 65–99.
PatrickA. (2002). Privacy, Trust, Agents & Users: A Review of Human-Factors Issues Associated with Building Trustworthy Software AgentsInstitute for Information Technology, National Research. Council of Canada.
22.
PollockJ. L. (1998). Procedural Epistemology-at the Interface of Philosophy and AI. In GrecoJ.SosaE.The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology(pp. 383–414). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
23.
RochaL. (1999). From Artificial Life to Semiotic Agent Models (No. LA-UR-99–5475). Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SaundersR. (2002). Artificial Creativity: A Synthetic Approach to the Study of Creative Behavior. University of Sydney.
26.
ShakunM. F. (2001). Unbounded Rationality. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 97–118.
27.
ShawR. (2001). Processes, Acts, and Experiences: Three Stances on the Problem of Intentionality. Ecological Psychology, 13, 4, 275–314.
28.
SilberD. (1999). Dutch books and agent rationality. Theories and Decision, 7, 247–266.
29.
WeirG.RovatsosM.NicklesM. (2003). Capturing Agent Autonomy in Roles and XML. Paper presented at the second international joint conference onAutonomous agents and multiagent systems, Melbourne, Australia.
30.
WeynsD.SteegmansE.HolvoetT. (2004). Towards active perception in situated multi-agent systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18, 867–883.
31.
WooldridgeM. J.JenningsN. R. (1995). Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: A survey. In WooldridgeM. J.JenningsN. R.Intelligent Agents(pp. 1–22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
