用人类和人工智能预测未来

Barbara A. Mellers, Louise Lu, John P. McCoy
{"title":"用人类和人工智能预测未来","authors":"Barbara A. Mellers,&nbsp;Louise Lu,&nbsp;John P. McCoy","doi":"10.1002/arcp.1089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We review the classic clinical versus statistical prediction debate as well as related modern work on humans versus. algorithms. Despite the successes of statistical prediction over clinical prediction, there is still widespread resistance to algorithms. We discuss recent attempts to understand that resistance. Current research focuses on when people use algorithmic predictions, how people perceive algorithms, and how algorithms can be made more appealing. We also examine attempts to boost human forecasting accuracy, either by spotting talent, cultivating talent via training, or developing algorithms that aggregate individual forecasts. We hypothesize that hybrid models with both human and algorithmic predictions may encounter less resistance than algorithms alone, especially when the algorithm is “humanized” (with anthropomorphic features) and the human is “algorithmized” (by reducing noise, decreasing bias and increasing signal).</p>","PeriodicalId":100328,"journal":{"name":"Consumer Psychology Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"109-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting the future with humans and AI\",\"authors\":\"Barbara A. Mellers,&nbsp;Louise Lu,&nbsp;John P. McCoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/arcp.1089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We review the classic clinical versus statistical prediction debate as well as related modern work on humans versus. algorithms. Despite the successes of statistical prediction over clinical prediction, there is still widespread resistance to algorithms. We discuss recent attempts to understand that resistance. Current research focuses on when people use algorithmic predictions, how people perceive algorithms, and how algorithms can be made more appealing. We also examine attempts to boost human forecasting accuracy, either by spotting talent, cultivating talent via training, or developing algorithms that aggregate individual forecasts. We hypothesize that hybrid models with both human and algorithmic predictions may encounter less resistance than algorithms alone, especially when the algorithm is “humanized” (with anthropomorphic features) and the human is “algorithmized” (by reducing noise, decreasing bias and increasing signal).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Consumer Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"109-120\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Consumer Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arcp.1089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consumer Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arcp.1089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们回顾了经典的临床与统计预测的争论,以及关于人类与人类的相关现代工作。算法。尽管统计预测相对于临床预测取得了成功,但算法仍然存在广泛的阻力。我们讨论了最近理解这种阻力的尝试。目前的研究重点是人们何时使用算法预测,人们如何感知算法,以及如何使算法更具吸引力。我们还研究了通过发现人才、通过培训培养人才或开发汇总个人预测的算法来提高人类预测准确性的尝试。我们假设,同时具有人类和算法预测的混合模型可能比单独的算法遇到更少的阻力,特别是当算法是“人性化”的(具有拟人化特征),人类是“算法化”的时(通过减少噪声、减少偏差和增加信号)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting the future with humans and AI

We review the classic clinical versus statistical prediction debate as well as related modern work on humans versus. algorithms. Despite the successes of statistical prediction over clinical prediction, there is still widespread resistance to algorithms. We discuss recent attempts to understand that resistance. Current research focuses on when people use algorithmic predictions, how people perceive algorithms, and how algorithms can be made more appealing. We also examine attempts to boost human forecasting accuracy, either by spotting talent, cultivating talent via training, or developing algorithms that aggregate individual forecasts. We hypothesize that hybrid models with both human and algorithmic predictions may encounter less resistance than algorithms alone, especially when the algorithm is “humanized” (with anthropomorphic features) and the human is “algorithmized” (by reducing noise, decreasing bias and increasing signal).

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
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