A Naturalistic Investigation of Trust, AI, and Intelligence Work

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-05-25 DOI:10.1177/15553434221103718
Stephen L. Dorton, Samantha B. Harper
{"title":"A Naturalistic Investigation of Trust, AI, and Intelligence Work","authors":"Stephen L. Dorton, Samantha B. Harper","doi":"10.1177/15553434221103718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often viewed as the means by which the intelligence community will cope with increasing amounts of data. There are challenges in adoption, however, as outputs of such systems may be difficult to trust, for a variety of factors. We conducted a naturalistic study using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) to identify which factors were present in incidents where trust in an AI technology used in intelligence work (i.e., the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence) was gained or lost. We found that explainability and performance of the AI were the most prominent factors in responses; however, several other factors affected the development of trust. Further, most incidents involved two or more trust factors, demonstrating that trust is a multifaceted phenomenon. We also conducted a broader thematic analysis to identify other trends in the data. We found that trust in AI is often affected by the interaction of other people with the AI (i.e., people who develop it or use its outputs), and that involving end users in the development of the AI also affects trust. We provide an overview of key findings, practical implications for design, and possible future areas for research.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"16 1","pages":"222 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221103718","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often viewed as the means by which the intelligence community will cope with increasing amounts of data. There are challenges in adoption, however, as outputs of such systems may be difficult to trust, for a variety of factors. We conducted a naturalistic study using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) to identify which factors were present in incidents where trust in an AI technology used in intelligence work (i.e., the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence) was gained or lost. We found that explainability and performance of the AI were the most prominent factors in responses; however, several other factors affected the development of trust. Further, most incidents involved two or more trust factors, demonstrating that trust is a multifaceted phenomenon. We also conducted a broader thematic analysis to identify other trends in the data. We found that trust in AI is often affected by the interaction of other people with the AI (i.e., people who develop it or use its outputs), and that involving end users in the development of the AI also affects trust. We provide an overview of key findings, practical implications for design, and possible future areas for research.
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
信任、人工智能和情报工作的自然调查
人工智能(AI)通常被视为情报界应对日益增长的数据量的手段。然而,在采用方面存在挑战,因为由于各种因素,这种系统的输出可能难以信任。我们使用关键事件技术(CIT)进行了一项自然主义研究,以确定在获得或失去对情报工作(即情报的收集、处理、分析和传播)中使用的人工智能技术的信任的事件中存在哪些因素。我们发现AI的可解释性和性能是回应中最突出的因素;然而,其他几个因素影响了信任的发展。此外,大多数事件涉及两个或两个以上的信任因素,表明信任是一个多方面的现象。我们还进行了更广泛的专题分析,以确定数据中的其他趋势。我们发现,对人工智能的信任经常受到其他人与人工智能的互动(即开发人工智能或使用其输出的人)的影响,而让最终用户参与人工智能的开发也会影响信任。我们概述了主要发现、对设计的实际影响以及未来可能的研究领域。
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
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
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