我们需要更好的人工智能图像和更好的关于人工智能的对话。

IF 2.9 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AI & Society Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1007/s00146-024-02101-z
Marc Steen, Tjerk Timan, Jurriaan Van Diggelen, Steven Vethman
{"title":"我们需要更好的人工智能图像和更好的关于人工智能的对话。","authors":"Marc Steen, Tjerk Timan, Jurriaan Van Diggelen, Steven Vethman","doi":"10.1007/s00146-024-02101-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we critique the ways in which the people involved in the development and application of AI systems often visualize and talk about AI systems. Often, they visualize such systems as shiny humanoid robots or as free-floating electronic brains. Such images convey misleading messages; as if AI works independently of people and can reason in ways superior to people. Instead, we propose to visualize AI systems as parts of larger, sociotechnical systems. Here, we can learn, for example, from cybernetics. Similarly, we propose that the people involved in the design and deployment of an algorithm would need to extend their conversations beyond the four boxes of the <i>Error Matrix</i>, for example, to critically discuss <i>false positives</i> and <i>false negatives</i>. We present two thought experiments, with one practical example in each. We propose to understand, visualize, and talk about AI systems in relation to a larger, complex reality; this is the requirement of <i>requisite variety</i>. We also propose to enable people from diverse disciplines to collaborate around <i>boundary objects</i>, for example: a drawing of an AI system in its sociotechnical context; or an 'extended' Error Matrix. Such interventions can promote meaningful human control, transparency, and fairness in the design and deployment of AI systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"40 5","pages":"3615-3626"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"We need better images of AI and better conversations about AI.\",\"authors\":\"Marc Steen, Tjerk Timan, Jurriaan Van Diggelen, Steven Vethman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00146-024-02101-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this article, we critique the ways in which the people involved in the development and application of AI systems often visualize and talk about AI systems. Often, they visualize such systems as shiny humanoid robots or as free-floating electronic brains. Such images convey misleading messages; as if AI works independently of people and can reason in ways superior to people. Instead, we propose to visualize AI systems as parts of larger, sociotechnical systems. Here, we can learn, for example, from cybernetics. Similarly, we propose that the people involved in the design and deployment of an algorithm would need to extend their conversations beyond the four boxes of the <i>Error Matrix</i>, for example, to critically discuss <i>false positives</i> and <i>false negatives</i>. We present two thought experiments, with one practical example in each. We propose to understand, visualize, and talk about AI systems in relation to a larger, complex reality; this is the requirement of <i>requisite variety</i>. We also propose to enable people from diverse disciplines to collaborate around <i>boundary objects</i>, for example: a drawing of an AI system in its sociotechnical context; or an 'extended' Error Matrix. Such interventions can promote meaningful human control, transparency, and fairness in the design and deployment of AI systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI & Society\",\"volume\":\"40 5\",\"pages\":\"3615-3626\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152090/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02101-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02101-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们批评了参与人工智能系统开发和应用的人们经常可视化和谈论人工智能系统的方式。通常,他们把这样的系统想象成闪亮的人形机器人或自由浮动的电子大脑。这样的图像传达了误导性的信息;好像人工智能独立于人类而工作,可以以比人类更高的方式进行推理。相反,我们建议将人工智能系统可视化为更大的社会技术系统的一部分。例如,我们可以从控制论中学习。同样,我们建议参与算法设计和部署的人员需要将他们的对话扩展到错误矩阵的四个框之外,例如,批判性地讨论假阳性和假阴性。我们提出了两个思想实验,每个都有一个实际的例子。我们建议将人工智能系统与一个更大、更复杂的现实联系起来理解、可视化和讨论;这是必要的多样性的要求。我们还建议让来自不同学科的人围绕边界对象进行协作,例如:在其社会技术背景下绘制人工智能系统;或者一个“扩展的”误差矩阵。此类干预措施可以在设计和部署人工智能系统时促进有意义的人类控制、透明度和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
We need better images of AI and better conversations about AI.

In this article, we critique the ways in which the people involved in the development and application of AI systems often visualize and talk about AI systems. Often, they visualize such systems as shiny humanoid robots or as free-floating electronic brains. Such images convey misleading messages; as if AI works independently of people and can reason in ways superior to people. Instead, we propose to visualize AI systems as parts of larger, sociotechnical systems. Here, we can learn, for example, from cybernetics. Similarly, we propose that the people involved in the design and deployment of an algorithm would need to extend their conversations beyond the four boxes of the Error Matrix, for example, to critically discuss false positives and false negatives. We present two thought experiments, with one practical example in each. We propose to understand, visualize, and talk about AI systems in relation to a larger, complex reality; this is the requirement of requisite variety. We also propose to enable people from diverse disciplines to collaborate around boundary objects, for example: a drawing of an AI system in its sociotechnical context; or an 'extended' Error Matrix. Such interventions can promote meaningful human control, transparency, and fairness in the design and deployment of AI systems.

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
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信