Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has potential to transform health care, but its successful implementation depends on the trust and acceptance of consumers and patients. Understanding the factors that influence attitudes toward AI is crucial for effective adoption. Despite AI’s growing integration into health care, consumer and patient acceptance remains a critical challenge. Research has largely focused on applications or attitudes, lacking a comprehensive analysis of how factors, such as demographics, personality traits, technology attitudes, and AI knowledge, affect and interact across different health care AI contexts. Objective: We aimed to investigate people’s trust in and acceptance of AI across health care use cases and determine how context and perceived risk affect individuals’ propensity to trust and accept AI in specific health care scenarios. Methods: We collected and analyzed web-based survey data from 1100 Finnish participants, presenting them with 8 AI use cases in health care: 5 (62%) noninvasive applications (eg, activity monitoring and mental health support) and 3 (38%) physical interventions (eg, AI-controlled robotic surgery). Respondents evaluated intention to use, trust, and willingness to trade off personal data for these use cases. Gradient boosted tree regression models were trained to predict responses based on 33 demographic-, personality-, and technology-related variables. To interpret the results of our predictive models, we used the Shapley additive explanations method, a game theory–based approach for explaining the output of machine learning models. It quantifies the contribution of each feature to individual predictions, allowing us to determine the relative importance of various demographic-, personality-, and technology-related factors and their interactions in shaping participants’ trust in and acceptance of AI in health care. Results: Consumer attitudes toward technology, technology use, and personality traits were the primary drivers of trust and intention to use AI in health care. Use cases were ranked by acceptance, with noninvasive monitors being the most preferred. However, the specific use case had less impact in general than expected. Nonlinear dependencies were observed, including an inverted U-shaped pattern in positivity toward AI based on self-reported AI knowledge. Certain personality traits, such as being more disorganized and careless, were associated with more positive attitudes toward AI in health care. Women seemed more cautious about AI applications in health care than men. Conclusions: The findings highlight the complex interplay of factors influencing trust and acceptance of AI in health care. Consumer trust and intention to use AI in health care are driven by technology attitudes and use rather than specific use cases. AI service providers should consider demographic factors, personality traits, and technology attitudes when designing and implementing AI systems in health care. The study demonstrates the potential of using predictive AI models as decision-making tools for implementing and interacting with clients in health care AI applications.

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a growing research field that has emerged in response to the challenges related to AI. Transparency poses a key challenge for implementing AI ethics in practice. One solution to transparency issues is AI systems that can explain their decisions. Explainable AI (XAI) refers to AI systems that are interpretable or understandable to humans. The research fields of AI ethics and XAI lack a common framework and conceptualization. There is no clarity of the field’s depth and versatility. A systematic approach to understanding the corpus is needed. A systematic review offers an opportunity to detect research gaps and focus points. This article presents the results of a systematic mapping study (SMS) of the research field of the Ethics of AI. The focus is on understanding the role of XAI and how the topic has been studied empirically. An SMS is a tool for performing a repeatable and continuable literature search. This article contributes to the research field with a Systematic Map that visualizes what, how, when, and why XAI has been studied empirically in the field of AI ethics. The mapping reveals research gaps in the area. Empirical contributions are drawn from the analysis. The contributions are reflected on in regards to theoretical and practical implications. As the scope of the SMS is a broader research area of AI ethics, the collected dataset opens possibilities to continue the mapping process in other directions.

With a backdrop of action and science fiction movie horrors of the dystopian relationship between humans and robots, surprisingly to date-with the exception of ethical discussions-the relationship aspect of humans and sex robots has seemed relatively unproblematic. The attraction to sex robots perhaps is the promise of unproblematic affectionate and sexual interactions, without the need to consider the other’s (the robot’s) emotions and indeed preference of sexual partners. Yet, with rapid advancements in information technology and robotics, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence and indeed, artificial emotions, there almost seems the likelihood, that sometime in the future, robots too, may love others in return. Who those others are-whether human or robot-is to be speculated. As with the laws of emotion, and particularly that of the cognitive-emotional theory on Appraisal, a reality in which robots experience their own emotions, may not be as rosy as would be expected.

This article discusses the prerequisites for the machine translation of sign languages. The topic is complex, including questions relating to technology, interaction design, linguistics and culture. At the moment, despite the affordances provided by the technology, automated translation between signed and spoken languages – or between sign languages – is not possible. The very need of such translation and its associated technology can also be questioned. Yet, we believe that contributing to the improvement of sign language detection, processing and even sign language translation to spoken languages in the future is a matter that should not be abandoned. However, we argue that this work should focus on all necessary aspects of sign languages and sign language user communities. Thus, a more diverse and critical perspective towards these issues is needed in order to avoid generalisations and bias that is often manifested within dominant research paradigms particularly in the fields of spoken language research and speech community.