缩小人工智能领域的社会-技术差距:衡量从业人员态度和观念的必要性

IF 2.1 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Pub Date : 2024-03-16 DOI:10.1109/MTS.2024.3392280
Malak Sadek;Rafael A. Calvo;Céline Mougenot
{"title":"缩小人工智能领域的社会-技术差距:衡量从业人员态度和观念的必要性","authors":"Malak Sadek;Rafael A. Calvo;Céline Mougenot","doi":"10.1109/MTS.2024.3392280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the need for artificial intelligence (AI) practitioners to shift their focus from a purely technical mindset toward a more human-centered approach. Technical experts are trained to consider the technical aspects of their work, which can cause them to overlook important socio–technical considerations and implications, resulting in a socio–technical gap in AI-based systems \n<xref>[4]</xref>\n. Unhelpful practitioner cultures can lead to them “rejecting practices or downplaying the importance of values or the possible threats of ignoring them” \n<xref>[1]</xref>\n. While efforts are being made to create ethical and more human-centered AI systems, there is a need for corresponding changes in the attitudes and perceptions of AI practitioners. Practitioners need to move away from a sole focus on compliance with responsible AI guidelines and regulations toward active reflection and empathy based on a true understanding of the profound effects their decisions can have on different stakeholders. However, one problematic barrier to beginning work on interventions that target practitioners’ mindsets and attitudes is the lack of a standardized method for evaluating or measuring the effectiveness of design interventions on their attitudes and perceptions. This article suggests the need for clearer metrics within the human–computer interaction (HCI) community for looking at practitioners’ attitudes toward socio–technical factors in AI design.","PeriodicalId":55016,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Closing the Socio–Technical Gap in AI: The Need for Measuring Practitioners’ Attitudes and Perceptions\",\"authors\":\"Malak Sadek;Rafael A. Calvo;Céline Mougenot\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/MTS.2024.3392280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the need for artificial intelligence (AI) practitioners to shift their focus from a purely technical mindset toward a more human-centered approach. Technical experts are trained to consider the technical aspects of their work, which can cause them to overlook important socio–technical considerations and implications, resulting in a socio–technical gap in AI-based systems \\n<xref>[4]</xref>\\n. Unhelpful practitioner cultures can lead to them “rejecting practices or downplaying the importance of values or the possible threats of ignoring them” \\n<xref>[1]</xref>\\n. While efforts are being made to create ethical and more human-centered AI systems, there is a need for corresponding changes in the attitudes and perceptions of AI practitioners. Practitioners need to move away from a sole focus on compliance with responsible AI guidelines and regulations toward active reflection and empathy based on a true understanding of the profound effects their decisions can have on different stakeholders. However, one problematic barrier to beginning work on interventions that target practitioners’ mindsets and attitudes is the lack of a standardized method for evaluating or measuring the effectiveness of design interventions on their attitudes and perceptions. This article suggests the need for clearer metrics within the human–computer interaction (HCI) community for looking at practitioners’ attitudes toward socio–technical factors in AI design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10532140/\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Technology and Society Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10532140/","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了人工智能(AI)从业人员将注意力从纯粹的技术思维转向更以人为本的方法的必要性。技术专家接受的培训是考虑其工作的技术方面,这可能会导致他们忽视重要的社会技术考虑因素和影响,从而造成基于人工智能的系统在社会技术方面的差距[4]。无益的从业者文化会导致他们 "拒绝接受实践,或淡化价值观的重要性或忽视价值观可能带来的威胁"[1]。在努力创造符合道德规范、更加以人为本的人工智能系统的同时,人工智能从业人员的态度和观念也需要做出相应的改变。从业者需要从仅仅关注遵守负责任的人工智能准则和法规,转向在真正理解其决策可能对不同利益相关者产生的深远影响的基础上,进行积极的反思和换位思考。然而,在开始针对从业人员的心态和态度进行干预时遇到的一个障碍是,缺乏一种标准化的方法来评估或衡量设计干预对他们的态度和观念的影响。本文提出,人机交互(HCI)界需要更明确的衡量标准,以考察从业人员对人工智能设计中社会技术因素的态度。
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
Closing the Socio–Technical Gap in AI: The Need for Measuring Practitioners’ Attitudes and Perceptions
This article discusses the need for artificial intelligence (AI) practitioners to shift their focus from a purely technical mindset toward a more human-centered approach. Technical experts are trained to consider the technical aspects of their work, which can cause them to overlook important socio–technical considerations and implications, resulting in a socio–technical gap in AI-based systems [4] . Unhelpful practitioner cultures can lead to them “rejecting practices or downplaying the importance of values or the possible threats of ignoring them” [1] . While efforts are being made to create ethical and more human-centered AI systems, there is a need for corresponding changes in the attitudes and perceptions of AI practitioners. Practitioners need to move away from a sole focus on compliance with responsible AI guidelines and regulations toward active reflection and empathy based on a true understanding of the profound effects their decisions can have on different stakeholders. However, one problematic barrier to beginning work on interventions that target practitioners’ mindsets and attitudes is the lack of a standardized method for evaluating or measuring the effectiveness of design interventions on their attitudes and perceptions. This article suggests the need for clearer metrics within the human–computer interaction (HCI) community for looking at practitioners’ attitudes toward socio–technical factors in AI design.
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
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine invites feature articles (refereed), special articles, and commentaries on topics within the scope of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology, in the broad areas of social implications of electrotechnology, history of electrotechnology, and engineering ethics.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Front Cover Call for Papers: IEEE ETHICS-2025 The Science of Life and Death in Frankenstein—Sharon Ruston (Oxford, U.K.: Bodleian Library, 2021, 152 pp.) IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Publication Information
×
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