设想可竞争性循环:评估作为公共人工智能生成隐喻的争论场

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sheji.2024.03.003
Kars Alfrink , Ianus Keller , Mireia Yurrita Semperena , Denis Bulygin , Gerd Kortuem , Neelke Doorn
{"title":"设想可竞争性循环:评估作为公共人工智能生成隐喻的争论场","authors":"Kars Alfrink ,&nbsp;Ianus Keller ,&nbsp;Mireia Yurrita Semperena ,&nbsp;Denis Bulygin ,&nbsp;Gerd Kortuem ,&nbsp;Neelke Doorn","doi":"10.1016/j.sheji.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Public sector organizations increasingly use artificial intelligence to augment, support, and automate decision-making. However, such public AI can potentially infringe on citizens’ right to autonomy. Contestability is a system quality that protects against this by ensuring systems are open and responsive to disputes throughout their life cycle. While a growing body of work is investigating contestable AI by design, little of this knowledge has so far been evaluated with practitioners. To make explicit the guiding ideas underpinning contestable AI research, we construct the generative metaphor of the Agonistic Arena, inspired by the political theory of agonistic pluralism. Combining this metaphor and current contestable AI guidelines, we develop an infographic supporting the early-stage concept design of public AI system contestability mechanisms. We evaluate this infographic in five workshops paired with focus groups with a total of 18 practitioners, yielding ten concept designs. Our findings outline the mechanisms for contestability derived from these concept designs. Building on these findings, we subsequently evaluate the efficacy of the Agonistic Arena as a generative metaphor for the design of public AI and identify two competing metaphors at play in this space: the Black Box and the Sovereign.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37146,"journal":{"name":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","volume":"10 1","pages":"Pages 53-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262400025X/pdfft?md5=814fb60fd91e9fcf5bf4e255cd7940cc&pid=1-s2.0-S240587262400025X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Envisioning Contestability Loops: Evaluating the Agonistic Arena as a Generative Metaphor for Public AI\",\"authors\":\"Kars Alfrink ,&nbsp;Ianus Keller ,&nbsp;Mireia Yurrita Semperena ,&nbsp;Denis Bulygin ,&nbsp;Gerd Kortuem ,&nbsp;Neelke Doorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sheji.2024.03.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Public sector organizations increasingly use artificial intelligence to augment, support, and automate decision-making. However, such public AI can potentially infringe on citizens’ right to autonomy. Contestability is a system quality that protects against this by ensuring systems are open and responsive to disputes throughout their life cycle. While a growing body of work is investigating contestable AI by design, little of this knowledge has so far been evaluated with practitioners. To make explicit the guiding ideas underpinning contestable AI research, we construct the generative metaphor of the Agonistic Arena, inspired by the political theory of agonistic pluralism. Combining this metaphor and current contestable AI guidelines, we develop an infographic supporting the early-stage concept design of public AI system contestability mechanisms. We evaluate this infographic in five workshops paired with focus groups with a total of 18 practitioners, yielding ten concept designs. Our findings outline the mechanisms for contestability derived from these concept designs. Building on these findings, we subsequently evaluate the efficacy of the Agonistic Arena as a generative metaphor for the design of public AI and identify two competing metaphors at play in this space: the Black Box and the Sovereign.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 53-93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262400025X/pdfft?md5=814fb60fd91e9fcf5bf4e255cd7940cc&pid=1-s2.0-S240587262400025X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262400025X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240587262400025X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公共部门组织越来越多地使用人工智能来增强、支持和自动化决策。然而,这种公共人工智能可能会侵犯公民的自主权。可竞争性是一种系统质量,通过确保系统在其整个生命周期内开放并对争议做出响应,来防止这种情况的发生。虽然越来越多的工作都在研究可竞争的人工智能设计,但迄今为止,这些知识很少经过实践者的评估。为了明确可竞争人工智能研究的指导思想,我们受多元争论政治理论的启发,构建了 "争论场"(Agonistic Arena)这一生成性隐喻。结合这一隐喻和当前的可竞赛人工智能指南,我们制作了一张信息图,支持公共人工智能系统可竞赛机制的早期概念设计。我们在五次研讨会上对该信息图进行了评估,并与共 18 名从业人员组成的焦点小组进行了讨论,最终产生了十种概念设计。我们的研究结果概述了从这些概念设计中得出的可竞争性机制。在这些发现的基础上,我们随后评估了 "争论场 "作为公共人工智能设计隐喻的有效性,并确定了在这一领域中两个相互竞争的隐喻:"黑箱 "和 "主权"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Envisioning Contestability Loops: Evaluating the Agonistic Arena as a Generative Metaphor for Public AI

Public sector organizations increasingly use artificial intelligence to augment, support, and automate decision-making. However, such public AI can potentially infringe on citizens’ right to autonomy. Contestability is a system quality that protects against this by ensuring systems are open and responsive to disputes throughout their life cycle. While a growing body of work is investigating contestable AI by design, little of this knowledge has so far been evaluated with practitioners. To make explicit the guiding ideas underpinning contestable AI research, we construct the generative metaphor of the Agonistic Arena, inspired by the political theory of agonistic pluralism. Combining this metaphor and current contestable AI guidelines, we develop an infographic supporting the early-stage concept design of public AI system contestability mechanisms. We evaluate this infographic in five workshops paired with focus groups with a total of 18 practitioners, yielding ten concept designs. Our findings outline the mechanisms for contestability derived from these concept designs. Building on these findings, we subsequently evaluate the efficacy of the Agonistic Arena as a generative metaphor for the design of public AI and identify two competing metaphors at play in this space: the Black Box and the Sovereign.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Editorial Reconceptualizing the Notion of Values in Design Talk Value Dimensions in Creative Collaborations for Social Innovation The Tools of the Trade: Cultures, Devices, and Valuation Practices in Urban Design Creating and Testing a Guideline for Governing Blockchain Ecosystems: A Study Informed by Design Science
×
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