The growing use of generative AI raises ethical concerns about authorship attribution and plagiarism. This study examines how people judge the reuse of AI-generated content, focusing on moral patiency and ownership perceptions. In an experiment, participants evaluated two substantively similar manuscripts in which the original source was described as authored by a human, an AI system, or an AI agent with a human-like name. Results showed that copying AI-generated work was judged less unethical, less plagiaristic, and less guilt-inducing than copying human-authored work. Mediation analyses revealed that this leniency stemmed from lower perceptions of AI’s capacity to suffer harm (moral patiency) and greater ownership attributed to the human writer reusing AI-generated content. Anthropomorphic cues shaped moral evaluations indirectly by reducing perceived ownership. These findings shed light on how people morally disengage when using AI-generated work and highlight differences in how ethical judgments are applied to human versus AI-created content.
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems