The impact of AI errors in a human-in-the-loop process.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-01-07 DOI:10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3
Ujué Agudo, Karlos G Liberal, Miren Arrese, Helena Matute
{"title":"The impact of AI errors in a human-in-the-loop process.","authors":"Ujué Agudo, Karlos G Liberal, Miren Arrese, Helena Matute","doi":"10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated decision-making is becoming increasingly common in the public sector. As a result, political institutions recommend the presence of humans in these decision-making processes as a safeguard against potentially erroneous or biased algorithmic decisions. However, the scientific literature on human-in-the-loop performance is not conclusive about the benefits and risks of such human presence, nor does it clarify which aspects of this human-computer interaction may influence the final decision. In two experiments, we simulate an automated decision-making process in which participants judge multiple defendants in relation to various crimes, and we manipulate the time in which participants receive support from a supposed automated system with Artificial Intelligence (before or after they make their judgments). Our results show that human judgment is affected when participants receive incorrect algorithmic support, particularly when they receive it before providing their own judgment, resulting in reduced accuracy. The data and materials for these experiments are freely available at the Open Science Framework:  https://osf.io/b6p4z/ Experiment 2 was preregistered.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10772030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Automated decision-making is becoming increasingly common in the public sector. As a result, political institutions recommend the presence of humans in these decision-making processes as a safeguard against potentially erroneous or biased algorithmic decisions. However, the scientific literature on human-in-the-loop performance is not conclusive about the benefits and risks of such human presence, nor does it clarify which aspects of this human-computer interaction may influence the final decision. In two experiments, we simulate an automated decision-making process in which participants judge multiple defendants in relation to various crimes, and we manipulate the time in which participants receive support from a supposed automated system with Artificial Intelligence (before or after they make their judgments). Our results show that human judgment is affected when participants receive incorrect algorithmic support, particularly when they receive it before providing their own judgment, resulting in reduced accuracy. The data and materials for these experiments are freely available at the Open Science Framework:  https://osf.io/b6p4z/ Experiment 2 was preregistered.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能误差对 "人-环 "流程的影响。
自动化决策在公共部门越来越普遍。因此,政治机构建议在这些决策过程中引入人工参与,以防止算法决策可能出现错误或偏差。然而,关于人机交互性能的科学文献并没有对这种人机交互的益处和风险做出定论,也没有阐明这种人机交互的哪些方面可能会影响最终决策。在两个实验中,我们模拟了一个自动决策过程,在此过程中,参与者根据各种罪行对多名被告进行判断,我们操纵了参与者从假定的人工智能自动系统获得支持的时间(在他们做出判断之前或之后)。我们的结果表明,当参与者收到不正确的算法支持时,人类的判断会受到影响,尤其是当他们在做出自己的判断之前收到算法支持时,结果会降低准确性。这些实验的数据和材料可在开放科学框架(Open Science Framework)上免费获取:https://osf.io/b6p4z/ 实验 2 已预先注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Delay discounting predicts COVID-19 vaccine booster willingness. Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance. Acquiring complex concepts through classification versus observation. The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robots. Older adults' recognition of medical terminology in hospital noise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1