人工智能误差对 "人-环 "流程的影响。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Ujué Agudo, Karlos G Liberal, Miren Arrese, Helena Matute
{"title":"人工智能误差对 \"人-环 \"流程的影响。","authors":"Ujué Agudo, Karlos G Liberal, Miren Arrese, Helena Matute","doi":"10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated decision-making is becoming increasingly common in the public sector. As a result, political institutions recommend the presence of humans in these decision-making processes as a safeguard against potentially erroneous or biased algorithmic decisions. However, the scientific literature on human-in-the-loop performance is not conclusive about the benefits and risks of such human presence, nor does it clarify which aspects of this human-computer interaction may influence the final decision. In two experiments, we simulate an automated decision-making process in which participants judge multiple defendants in relation to various crimes, and we manipulate the time in which participants receive support from a supposed automated system with Artificial Intelligence (before or after they make their judgments). Our results show that human judgment is affected when participants receive incorrect algorithmic support, particularly when they receive it before providing their own judgment, resulting in reduced accuracy. The data and materials for these experiments are freely available at the Open Science Framework:  https://osf.io/b6p4z/ Experiment 2 was preregistered.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10772030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of AI errors in a human-in-the-loop process.\",\"authors\":\"Ujué Agudo, Karlos G Liberal, Miren Arrese, Helena Matute\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Automated decision-making is becoming increasingly common in the public sector. As a result, political institutions recommend the presence of humans in these decision-making processes as a safeguard against potentially erroneous or biased algorithmic decisions. However, the scientific literature on human-in-the-loop performance is not conclusive about the benefits and risks of such human presence, nor does it clarify which aspects of this human-computer interaction may influence the final decision. In two experiments, we simulate an automated decision-making process in which participants judge multiple defendants in relation to various crimes, and we manipulate the time in which participants receive support from a supposed automated system with Artificial Intelligence (before or after they make their judgments). Our results show that human judgment is affected when participants receive incorrect algorithmic support, particularly when they receive it before providing their own judgment, resulting in reduced accuracy. The data and materials for these experiments are freely available at the Open Science Framework:  https://osf.io/b6p4z/ Experiment 2 was preregistered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10772030/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00529-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自动化决策在公共部门越来越普遍。因此,政治机构建议在这些决策过程中引入人工参与,以防止算法决策可能出现错误或偏差。然而,关于人机交互性能的科学文献并没有对这种人机交互的益处和风险做出定论,也没有阐明这种人机交互的哪些方面可能会影响最终决策。在两个实验中,我们模拟了一个自动决策过程,在此过程中,参与者根据各种罪行对多名被告进行判断,我们操纵了参与者从假定的人工智能自动系统获得支持的时间(在他们做出判断之前或之后)。我们的结果表明,当参与者收到不正确的算法支持时,人类的判断会受到影响,尤其是当他们在做出自己的判断之前收到算法支持时,结果会降低准确性。这些实验的数据和材料可在开放科学框架(Open Science Framework)上免费获取:https://osf.io/b6p4z/ 实验 2 已预先注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of AI errors in a human-in-the-loop process.

Automated decision-making is becoming increasingly common in the public sector. As a result, political institutions recommend the presence of humans in these decision-making processes as a safeguard against potentially erroneous or biased algorithmic decisions. However, the scientific literature on human-in-the-loop performance is not conclusive about the benefits and risks of such human presence, nor does it clarify which aspects of this human-computer interaction may influence the final decision. In two experiments, we simulate an automated decision-making process in which participants judge multiple defendants in relation to various crimes, and we manipulate the time in which participants receive support from a supposed automated system with Artificial Intelligence (before or after they make their judgments). Our results show that human judgment is affected when participants receive incorrect algorithmic support, particularly when they receive it before providing their own judgment, resulting in reduced accuracy. The data and materials for these experiments are freely available at the Open Science Framework:  https://osf.io/b6p4z/ Experiment 2 was preregistered.

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
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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