Can Machine Learning be a Good Teammate?

L. Blaha, Megan B. Morris
{"title":"Can Machine Learning be a Good Teammate?","authors":"L. Blaha, Megan B. Morris","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1003578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We hypothesize that successful human-machine learning teaming requires machine learning to be a good teammate. However, little is understood about what the important design factors are for creating technology that people perceive to be good teammates. In a recent survey study, data from over 1,100 users of commercially available smart technology rated characteristics of teammates. Results indicate that across several categories of technology, a good teammate must (1) be reliable, competent and communicative, (2) build human-like relationships with the user, (3) perform their own tasks, pick up the slack, and help when someone is overloaded, (4) learn to aid and support a user’s cognitive abilities, (5) offer polite explanations and be transparent in their behaviors, (6) have common, helpful goals, and (7) act in a predictable manner. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the degree of importance given to these various characteristics varies by several individual differences in the participants, including their agreeableness, propensity to trust technology, and tendency to be an early technology adopter. In this paper, we explore the implications of these good teammate characteristics and individual differences in the design of machine learning algorithms and their user interfaces. Machine learners, particularly if coupled with interactive learning or adaptive interface design, may be able to tailor themselves or their interactions to align with what individual users perceive to be important characteristics. This has the potential to promote more reliance and common ground. While this sounds promising, it may also risk overreliance or misunderstanding between a system’s actual capabilities and the user’s perceived capabilities. We begin to lay out the possible design space considerations for building good machine learning teammates.","PeriodicalId":102446,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors and Simulation","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors and Simulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003578","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

We hypothesize that successful human-machine learning teaming requires machine learning to be a good teammate. However, little is understood about what the important design factors are for creating technology that people perceive to be good teammates. In a recent survey study, data from over 1,100 users of commercially available smart technology rated characteristics of teammates. Results indicate that across several categories of technology, a good teammate must (1) be reliable, competent and communicative, (2) build human-like relationships with the user, (3) perform their own tasks, pick up the slack, and help when someone is overloaded, (4) learn to aid and support a user’s cognitive abilities, (5) offer polite explanations and be transparent in their behaviors, (6) have common, helpful goals, and (7) act in a predictable manner. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the degree of importance given to these various characteristics varies by several individual differences in the participants, including their agreeableness, propensity to trust technology, and tendency to be an early technology adopter. In this paper, we explore the implications of these good teammate characteristics and individual differences in the design of machine learning algorithms and their user interfaces. Machine learners, particularly if coupled with interactive learning or adaptive interface design, may be able to tailor themselves or their interactions to align with what individual users perceive to be important characteristics. This has the potential to promote more reliance and common ground. While this sounds promising, it may also risk overreliance or misunderstanding between a system’s actual capabilities and the user’s perceived capabilities. We begin to lay out the possible design space considerations for building good machine learning teammates.
机器学习能成为一个好队友吗?
我们假设成功的人机学习团队需要机器学习成为一个好的队友。然而,对于创造人们认为是好队友的技术的重要设计因素是什么,人们却知之甚少。在最近的一项调查研究中,来自1100多名商用智能技术用户的数据对队友的特征进行了评分。结果表明,在多个技术类别中,优秀的团队成员必须(1)可靠、有能力和善于沟通,(2)与用户建立类似人类的关系,(3)执行自己的任务,捡起slack,并在有人超负荷时提供帮助,(4)学会帮助和支持用户的认知能力,(5)提供礼貌的解释,并在他们的行为中保持透明,(6)有共同的、有益的目标,(7)以可预测的方式行事。有趣的是,但并不令人惊讶的是,这些不同特征的重要性程度因参与者的几个个体差异而异,包括他们的亲和性,信任技术的倾向,以及成为早期技术采用者的倾向。在本文中,我们探讨了这些良好的团队特征和个体差异在机器学习算法及其用户界面设计中的含义。机器学习,特别是如果与交互式学习或自适应界面设计相结合,可能能够定制自己或他们的交互,以符合个人用户认为的重要特征。这有可能促进更多的依赖和共同点。虽然这听起来很有希望,但它也可能存在系统实际功能与用户感知功能之间的过度依赖或误解的风险。我们开始为构建优秀的机器学习团队列出可能的设计空间考虑因素。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信