Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAI video editing tools. What editors want and how far is AI from delivering?
115
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Than Htut Soe
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Than Htut Soe
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Video editing can be a very tedious task, so unsurprisingly Artificial Intelligence has been increasingly used to streamline the workflow or automate away tedious tasks. However, it is very difficult to get an overview of what intelligent video editing tools are in the research literature and needs for automation from the video editors. So, we identified the field of intelligent video editing tools in research, and we survey the opinions of professional video editors. We have also summarized current state of the art in artificial intelligence research with the intention of identifying what are the possibilities and current technical limits towards truly intelligent video editing tools. The findings contribute towards understanding of the field of intelligent video editing tools, highlights unaddressed automation needs by the survey and provides general suggestions for further research in intelligent video editing tools.
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.
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) bring human-AI interaction to the forefront of HCI research. This paper argues that games are an ideal domain for studying and experimenting with how humans interact with AI. Through a systematic survey of neural network games (n = 38), we identified the dominant interaction metaphors and AI interaction patterns in these games. In addition, we applied existing human-AI interaction guidelines to further shed light on player-AI interaction in the context of AI-infused systems. Our core finding is that AI as play can expand current notions of human-AI interaction, which are predominantly productivity-based. In particular, our work suggests that game and UX designers should consider flow to structure the learning curve of human-AI interaction, incorporate discovery-based learning to play around with the AI and observe the consequences, and offer users an invitation to play to explore new forms of human-AI interaction.
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.
Designing human-centered AI-driven applications require deep understandings of how people develop mental models of AI. Currently, we have little knowledge of this process and limited tools to study it. This paper presents the position that AI-based games, particularly the player-AI interaction component, offer an ideal domain to study the process in which mental models evolve. We present a case study to illustrate the benefits of our approach for explainable AI.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been increasingly used in the implementation of advanced Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS). Research demonstrated the potential usefulness of AI-powered CDSS (AI-CDSS) in clinical decision making scenarios. However, post-adoption user perception and experience remain understudied, especially in developing countries. Through observations and interviews with 22 clinicians from 6 rural clinics in China, this paper reports the various tensions between the design of an AI-CDSS system (Brilliant Doctor) and the rural clinical context, such as the misalignment with local context and workflow, the technical limitations and usability barriers, as well as issues related to transparency and trustworthiness of AI-CDSS. Despite these tensions, all participants expressed positive attitudes toward the future of AI-CDSS, especially acting as a doctors AI assistant to realize a Human-AI Collaboration future in clinical settings. Finally we draw on our findings to discuss implications for designing AI-CDSS interventions for rural clinical contexts in developing countries.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
