Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAAAI FSS-19: Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models and Data Proceedings
121
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Florian Buettner
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
To facilitate the widespread acceptance of AI systems guiding decision-making in real-world applications, it is key that solutions comprise trustworthy, integrated human-AI systems. Not only in safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving or medicine, but also in dynamic open world systems in industry and government it is crucial for predictive models to be uncertainty-aware and yield trustworthy predictions. Another key requirement for deployment of AI at enterprise scale is to realize the importance of integrating human-centered design into AI systems such that humans are able to use systems effectively, understand results and output, and explain findings to oversight committees. While the focus of this symposium was on AI systems to improve data quality and technical robustness and safety, we welcomed submissions from broadly defined areas also discussing approaches addressing requirements such as explainable models, human trust and ethical aspects of AI.
rate research
Read More
The Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) Symposium has been a successful venue of discussion and collaboration since 2014. In that time, the related topic of trust in robotics has been rapidly growing, with major research efforts at universities and laboratories across the world. Indeed, many of the past participants in AI-HRI have been or are now involved with research into trust in HRI. While trust has no consensus definition, it is regularly associated with predictability, reliability, inciting confidence, and meeting expectations. Furthermore, it is generally believed that trust is crucial for adoption of both AI and robotics, particularly when transitioning technologies from the lab to industrial, social, and consumer applications. However, how does trust apply to the specific situations we encounter in the AI-HRI sphere? Is the notion of trust in AI the same as that in HRI? We see a growing need for research that lives directly at the intersection of AI and HRI that is serviced by this symposium. Over the course of the two-day meeting, we propose to create a collaborative forum for discussion of current efforts in trust for AI-HRI, with a sub-session focused on the related topic of explainable AI (XAI) for HRI.
Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Artificial Intelligence in Government and Public Sector, Arlington, Virginia, USA, October 18-20, 2018
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will transform modern life by reshaping transportation, health, science, finance, and the military. To adapt public policy, we need to better anticipate these advances. Here we report the results from a large survey of machine learning researchers on their beliefs about progress in AI. Researchers predict AI will outperform humans in many activities in the next ten years, such as translating languages (by 2024), writing high-school essays (by 2026), driving a truck (by 2027), working in retail (by 2031), writing a bestselling book (by 2049), and working as a surgeon (by 2053). Researchers believe there is a 50% chance of AI outperforming humans in all tasks in 45 years and of automating all human jobs in 120 years, with Asian respondents expecting these dates much sooner than North Americans. These results will inform discussion amongst researchers and policymakers about anticipating and managing trends in AI.
The ability to explain decisions made by AI systems is highly sought after, especially in domains where human lives are at stake such as medicine or autonomous vehicles. While it is often possible to approximate the input-output relations of deep neural networks with a few human-understandable rules, the discovery of the double descent phenomena suggests that such approximations do not accurately capture the mechanism by which deep neural networks work. Double descent indicates that deep neural networks typically operate by smoothly interpolating between data points rather than by extracting a few high level rules. As a result, neural networks trained on complex real world data are inherently hard to interpret and prone to failure if asked to extrapolate. To show how we might be able to trust AI despite these problems we introduce the concept of self-explaining AI. Self-explaining AIs are capable of providing a human-understandable explanation of each decision along with confidence levels for both the decision and explanation. For this approach to work, it is important that the explanation actually be related to the decision, ideally capturing the mechanism used to arrive at the explanation. Finally, we argue it is important that deep learning based systems include a warning light based on techniques from applicability domain analysis to warn the user if a model is asked to extrapolate outside its training distribution. For a video presentation of this talk see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py7PVdcu7WY& .
Explainability has been a goal for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems since their conception, with the need for explainability growing as more complex AI models are increasingly used in critical, high-stakes settings such as healthcare. Explanations have often added to an AI system in a non-principled, post-hoc manner. With greater adoption of these systems and emphasis on user-centric explainability, there is a need for a structured representation that treats explainability as a primary consideration, mapping end user needs to specific explanation types and the systems AI capabilities. We design an explanation ontology to model both the role of explanations, accounting for the system and user attributes in the process, and the range of different literature-derived explanation types. We indicate how the ontology can support user requirements for explanations in the domain of healthcare. We evaluate our ontology with a set of competency questions geared towards a system designer who might use our ontology to decide which explanation types to include, given a combination of users needs and a systems capabilities, both in system design settings and in real-time operations. Through the use of this ontology, system designers will be able to make informed choices on which explanations AI systems can and should provide.
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
