Most prior work on human-AI interaction is set in communities that indicate skepticism towards AI, but we know less about contexts where AI is viewed as aspirational. We investigated the perceptions around AI systems by drawing upon 32 interviews and 459 survey respondents in India. Not only do Indian users accept AI decisions (79.2% respondents indicate acceptance), we find a case of AI authority—AI has a legitimized power to influence human actions, without requiring adequate evidence about the capabilities of the system. AI authority manifested into four user attitudes of vulnerability: faith, forgiveness, self-blame, and gratitude, pointing to higher tolerance for system misfires, and introducing potential for irreversible individual and societal harm. We urgently call for calibrating AI authority, reconsidering success metrics and responsible AI approaches and present methodological suggestions for research and deployments in India.

/pdf/because-ai-is-100-right-and-safe-user-attitudes-and-sources-2fw17k1v.pdf

”Because AI is 100% right and safe”: User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India

Artificial intelligence (AI) presents new challenges for the user experience (UX) of products and services. Recently, practitioner-facing resources and design guidelines have become available to ease some of these challenges. However, little research has investigated if and how these guidelines are used, and how they impact practice. In this paper, we investigated how industry practitioners use the People + AI Guidebook. We conducted interviews with 31 practitioners (i.e., designers, product managers) to understand how they use human-AI guidelines when designing AI-enabled products. Our findings revealed that practitioners use the guidebook not only for addressing AI’s design challenges, but also for education, cross-functional communication, and for developing internal resources. We uncovered that practitioners desire more support for early phase ideation and problem formulation to avoid AI product failures. We discuss the implications for future resources aiming to help practitioners in designing AI products.

/pdf/investigating-how-practitioners-use-human-ai-guidelines-a-14hmtrlc.pdf

Investigating How Practitioners Use Human-AI Guidelines: A Case Study on the People + AI Guidebook

There is growing concern about governments’ use of algorithms to make high-stakes decisions. While an early wave of research focused on algorithms that predict risk to allocate punishment and suspicion, a newer wave of research studies algorithms that predict “need” or “benefit” to target beneficial resources, such as ranking those experiencing homelessness by their need for housing. The present paper argues that existing research on the role of algorithms in social policy could benefit from a counterfactual perspective that asks: given that a social service bureaucracy needs to make some decision about whom to help, what status quo prioritization method would algorithms replace? While a large body of research contrasts human versus algorithmic decision-making, social service bureaucracies target help not by giving street-level bureaucrats full discretion. Instead, they primarily target help through pre-algorithmic, rule-based methods. In this paper, we outline social policy’s current status quo method—categorical prioritization—where decision-makers manually (1) decide which attributes of help seekers should give those help seekers priority, (2) simplify any continuous measures of need into categories (e.g., household income falls below a threshold), and (3) manually choose the decision rules that map categories to priority levels. We draw on novel data and quantitative and qualitative social science methods to outline categorical prioritization in two case studies of United States social policy: waitlists for scarce housing vouchers and K-12 school finance formulas. We outline three main differences between categorical and algorithmic prioritization: is the basis for prioritization formalized; what role does power play in prioritization; and are decision rules for priority manually chosen or inductively derived from a predictive model. Concluding, we show how the counterfactual perspective underscores both the understudied costs of categorical prioritization in social policy and the understudied potential of predictive algorithms to narrow inequalities.

/pdf/what-is-the-bureaucratic-counterfactual-categorical-versus-1dno7std.pdf

What is the Bureaucratic Counterfactual? Categorical versus Algorithmic Prioritization in U.S. Social Policy

Regular eXplainable AI (XAI) approaches are often ineffective in supporting decision-makers across domains. In some instances, it can even lead to automation bias or algorithmic aversion or would simply be ignored as a redundant feature. Based on cognitive psychology literature we outline a strategy for how XAI interface design could be tailored to have a long-lasting educational value. We suggest the features that could support domain-related and technical skills development this way narrowing the digital divide between “new” and “old” experts. Lastly, we suggest an intermitted explainability approach that could help to find a balance between seamless and cognitively engaging explanations.

XAI for learning: Narrowing down the digital divide between “new” and “old” experts

Algorithmic systems are increasingly deployed to make decisions in many areas of people's lives. The shift from human to algorithmic decision-making has been accompanied by concern about potentially opaque decisions that are not aligned with social values, as well as proposed remedies such as explainability. We present results of a qualitative study of algorithmic decision-making, comprised of five workshops conducted with a total of 60 participants in Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We invited participants to reason about decision-making qualities such as explainability and accuracy in a variety of domains. Participants viewed AI as a decision-maker that follows rigid criteria and performs mechanical tasks well, but is largely incapable of subjective or morally complex judgments. We discuss participants' consideration of humanity in decision-making, and introduce the concept of 'negotiability,' the ability to go beyond formal criteria and work flexibly around the system.

"A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity?

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Lynette Webb

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

"A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity?