Questioning AI: Promoting Decision-Making Autonomy Through Reflection

Simon WS Fischer
{"title":"Questioning AI: Promoting Decision-Making Autonomy Through Reflection","authors":"Simon WS Fischer","doi":"arxiv-2409.10250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision-making is increasingly supported by machine recommendations. In\nhealthcare, for example, a clinical decision support system is used by the\nphysician to find a treatment option for a patient. In doing so, people can\nrely too much on these systems, which impairs their own reasoning process. The\nEuropean AI Act addresses the risk of over-reliance and postulates in Article\n14 on human oversight that people should be able \"to remain aware of the\npossible tendency of automatically relying or over-relying on the output\".\nSimilarly, the EU High-Level Expert Group identifies human agency and oversight\nas the first of seven key requirements for trustworthy AI. The following\nposition paper proposes a conceptual approach to generate machine questions\nabout the decision at hand, in order to promote decision-making autonomy. This\nengagement in turn allows for oversight of recommender systems. The systematic\nand interdisciplinary investigation (e.g., machine learning, user experience\ndesign, psychology, philosophy of technology) of human-machine interaction in\nrelation to decision-making provides insights to questions like: how to\nincrease human oversight and calibrate over- and under-reliance on machine\nrecommendations; how to increase decision-making autonomy and remain aware of\nother possibilities beyond automated suggestions that repeat the status-quo?","PeriodicalId":501541,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Human-Computer Interaction","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Human-Computer Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.10250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decision-making is increasingly supported by machine recommendations. In healthcare, for example, a clinical decision support system is used by the physician to find a treatment option for a patient. In doing so, people can rely too much on these systems, which impairs their own reasoning process. The European AI Act addresses the risk of over-reliance and postulates in Article 14 on human oversight that people should be able "to remain aware of the possible tendency of automatically relying or over-relying on the output". Similarly, the EU High-Level Expert Group identifies human agency and oversight as the first of seven key requirements for trustworthy AI. The following position paper proposes a conceptual approach to generate machine questions about the decision at hand, in order to promote decision-making autonomy. This engagement in turn allows for oversight of recommender systems. The systematic and interdisciplinary investigation (e.g., machine learning, user experience design, psychology, philosophy of technology) of human-machine interaction in relation to decision-making provides insights to questions like: how to increase human oversight and calibrate over- and under-reliance on machine recommendations; how to increase decision-making autonomy and remain aware of other possibilities beyond automated suggestions that repeat the status-quo?
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
质疑人工智能:通过反思促进决策自主性
决策制定越来越多地得到机器建议的支持。例如,在医疗保健领域,医生使用临床决策支持系统为病人寻找治疗方案。在此过程中,人们可能会过度依赖这些系统,从而影响自己的推理过程。欧洲人工智能法案》提到了过度依赖的风险,并在关于人类监督的第 14 条中规定,人们应该能够 "始终意识到自动依赖或过度依赖输出结果的可能趋势"。下面的立场文件提出了一种概念性方法,让机器对手头的决策产生疑问,以促进决策的自主性。这种参与反过来又允许对推荐系统进行监督。与决策相关的人机交互的系统性和跨学科研究(如机器学习、用户体验设计、心理学、技术哲学)为以下问题提供了启示:如何加强人类监督并校准对机器推荐的过度依赖和不足;如何提高决策自主性并在重复现状的自动化建议之外保持对其他可能性的认识?
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Equimetrics -- Applying HAR principles to equestrian activities AI paintings vs. Human Paintings? Deciphering Public Interactions and Perceptions towards AI-Generated Paintings on TikTok From Data Stories to Dialogues: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Generative AI Agents and Data Storytelling in Enhancing Data Visualisation Comprehension Exploring Gaze Pattern in Autistic Children: Clustering, Visualization, and Prediction Revealing the Challenge of Detecting Character Knowledge Errors in LLM Role-Playing
×
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