Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDemocratizing AI: Non-expert design of prediction tasks
221
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
James Bagrow
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
James P. Bagrow
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Non-experts have long made important contributions to machine learning (ML) by contributing training data, and recent work has shown that non-experts can also help with feature engineering by suggesting novel predictive features. However, non-experts have only contributed features to prediction tasks already posed by experienced ML practitioners. Here we study how non-experts can design prediction tasks themselves, what types of tasks non-experts will design, and whether predictive models can be automatically trained on data sourced for their tasks. We use a crowdsourcing platform where non-experts design predictive tasks that are then categorized and ranked by the crowd. Crowdsourced data are collected for top-ranked tasks and predictive models are then trained and evaluated automatically using those data. We show that individuals without ML experience can collectively construct useful datasets and that predictive models can be learned on these datasets, but challenges remain. The prediction tasks designed by non-experts covered a broad range of domains, from politics and current events to health behavior, demographics, and more. Proper instructions are crucial for non-experts, so we also conducted a randomized trial to understand how different instructions may influence the types of prediction tasks being proposed. In general, understanding better how non-experts can contribute to ML can further leverage advances in Automatic ML and has important implications as ML continues to drive workplace automation.
rate research
Read More
Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions and hold systems accountable. While opening the opaque box is important, understanding who opens the box can govern if the Human-AI interaction is effective. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups of whos--people with and without a background in AI--perceive different types of AI explanations. These groups were chosen to look at how disparities in AI backgrounds can exacerbate the creator-consumer gap. We quantitatively share what the perceptions are along five dimensions: confidence, intelligence, understandability, second chance, and friendliness. Qualitatively, we highlight how the AI background influences each groups interpretations and elucidate why the differences might exist through the lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups had unwarranted faith in numbers, to different extents and for different reasons, (2) each group found explanatory values in different explanations that went beyond the usage we designed them for, and (3) each group had different requirements of what counts as humanlike explanations. Using our findings, we discuss potential negative consequences such as harmful manipulation of user trust and propose design interventions to mitigate them. By bringing conscious awareness to how and why AI backgrounds shape perceptions of potential creators and consumers in XAI, our work takes a formative step in advancing a pluralistic Human-centered Explainable AI discourse.
Organizations are rapidly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to manage their workers. However, AI has been found at times to be unfair to workers. Unfairness toward workers has been associated with decreased worker effort and increased worker turnover. To avoid such problems, AI systems must be designed to support fairness and redress instances of unfairness. Despite the attention related to AI unfairness, there has not been a theoretical and systematic approach to developing a design agenda. This paper addresses the issue in three ways. First, we introduce the organizational justice theory, three different fairness types (distributive, procedural, interactional), and the frameworks for redressing instances of unfairness (retributive justice, restorative justice). Second, we review the design literature that specifically focuses on issues of AI fairness in organizations. Third, we propose a design agenda for AI fairness in organizations that applies each of the fairness types to organizational scenarios. Then, the paper concludes with implications for future research.
Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence are considered an integral part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Their impact, and far-reaching consequences, while acknowledged, are yet to be comprehended. These technologies are very specialized, and few organizations and select highly trained professionals have the wherewithal, in terms of money, manpower, and might, to chart the future. However, concentration of power can lead to marginalization, causing severe inequalities. Regulatory agencies and governments across the globe are creating national policies, and laws around these technologies to protect the rights of the digital citizens, as well as to empower them. Even private, not-for-profit organizations are also contributing to democratizing the technologies by making them emph{accessible} and emph{affordable}. However, accessibility and affordability are all but a few of the facets of democratizing the field. Others include, but not limited to, emph{portability}, emph{explainability}, emph{credibility}, emph{fairness}, among others. As one can imagine, democratizing AI is a multi-faceted problem, and it requires advancements in science, technology and policy. At texttt{mlsquare}, we are developing scientific tools in this space. Specifically, we introduce an opinionated, extensible, texttt{Python} framework that provides a single point of interface to a variety of solutions in each of the categories mentioned above. We present the design details, APIs of the framework, reference implementations, road map for development, and guidelines for contributions.
AI for supporting designers needs to be rethought. It should aim to cooperate, not automate, by supporting and leveraging the creativity and problem-solving of designers. The challenge for such AI is how to infer designers goals and then help them without being needlessly disruptive. We present AI-assisted design: a framework for creating such AI, built around generative user models which enable reasoning about designers goals, reasoning, and capabilities.
Clinical decision support tools (DST) promise improved healthcare outcomes by offering data-driven insights. While effective in lab settings, almost all DSTs have failed in practice. Empirical research diagnosed poor contextual fit as the cause. This paper describes the design and field evaluation of a radically new form of DST. It automatically generates slides for clinicians decision meetings with subtly embedded machine prognostics. This design took inspiration from the notion of Unremarkable Computing, that by augmenting the users routines technology/AI can have significant importance for the users yet remain unobtrusive. Our field evaluation suggests clinicians are more likely to encounter and embrace such a DST. Drawing on their responses, we discuss the importance and intricacies of finding the right level of unremarkableness in DST design, and share lessons learned in prototyping critical AI systems as a situated experience.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
