Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userHuman-AI Collaboration in Data Science: Exploring Data Scientists Perceptions of Automated AI
330
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Dakuo Wang
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our lives in many ways. One application domain is data science. New techniques in automating the creation of AI, known as AutoAI or AutoML, aim to automate the work practices of data scientists. AutoAI systems are capable of autonomously ingesting and pre-processing data, engineering new features, and creating and scoring models based on a target objectives (e.g. accuracy or run-time efficiency). Though not yet widely adopted, we are interested in understanding how AutoAI will impact the practice of data science. We conducted interviews with 20 data scientists who work at a large, multinational technology company and practice data science in various business settings. Our goal is to understand their current work practices and how these practices might change with AutoAI. Reactions were mixed: while informants expressed concerns about the trend of automating their jobs, they also strongly felt it was inevitable. Despite these concerns, they remained optimistic about their future job security due to a view that the future of data science work will be a collaboration between humans and AI systems, in which both automation and human expertise are indispensable.
rate research
Read More
Human and AI are increasingly interacting and collaborating to accomplish various complex tasks in the context of diverse application domains (e.g., healthcare, transportation, and creative design). Two dynamic, learning entities (AI and human) have distinct mental model, expertise, and ability; such fundamental difference/mismatch offers opportunities for bringing new perspectives to achieve better results. However, this mismatch can cause unexpected failure and result in serious consequences. While recent research has paid much attention to enhancing interpretability or explainability to allow machine to explain how it makes a decision for supporting humans, this research argues that there is urging the need for both human and AI should develop specific, corresponding ability to interact and collaborate with each other to form a human-AI team to accomplish superior results. This research introduces a conceptual framework called Co-Learning, in which people can learn with/from and grow with AI partners over time. We characterize three key concepts of co-learning: mutual understanding, mutual benefits, and mutual growth for facilitating human-AI collaboration on complex problem solving. We will present proof-of-concepts to investigate whether and how our approach can help human-AI team to understand and benefit each other, and ultimately improve productivity and creativity on creative problem domains. The insights will contribute to the design of Human-AI collaboration.
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.
Human-machine complementarity is important when neither the algorithm nor the human yield dominant performance across all instances in a given domain. Most research on algorithmic decision-making solely centers on the algorithms performance, while recent work that explores human-machine collaboration has framed the decision-making problems as classification tasks. In this paper, we first propose and then develop a solution for a novel human-machine collaboration problem in a bandit feedback setting. Our solution aims to exploit the human-machine complementarity to maximize decision rewards. We then extend our approach to settings with multiple human decision makers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods using both synthetic and real human responses, and find that our methods outperform both the algorithm and the human when they each make decisions on their own. We also show how personalized routing in the presence of multiple human decision-makers can further improve the human-machine team performance.
We argue that a key challenge in enabling usable and useful interactive task learning for intelligent agents is to facilitate effective Human-AI collaboration. We reflect on our past 5 years of efforts on designing, developing and studying the SUGILITE system, discuss the issues on incorporating recent advances in AI with HCI principles in mixed-initiative interactions and multi-modal interactions, and summarize the lessons we learned. Lastly, we identify several challenges and opportunities, and describe our ongoing work
How to attribute responsibility for autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems actions has been widely debated across the humanities and social science disciplines. This work presents two experiments ($N$=200 each) that measure peoples perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents in the context of bail decision-making. Using real-life adapted vignettes, our experiments show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. However, there was a meaningful difference in how people perceived these agents moral responsibility; human agents were ascribed to a higher degree of present-looking and forward-looking notions of responsibility than AI agents. We also found that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature. We discuss policy and HCI implications of these findings, such as the need for explainable AI in high-stakes scenarios.
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
