Developing and Evaluating a Design Method for Positive Artificial Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01499v3
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:58:47 GMT
• Title: Developing and Evaluating a Design Method for Positive Artificial Intelligence
• Authors: Willem van der Maden, Derek Lomas, Paul Hekkert,
• Abstract summary: Development of "AI for good" poses challenges around aligning systems with complex human values.<n>This article presents and evaluates the Positive AI design method aimed at addressing this gap.<n>The method provides a human-centered process to translate wellbeing aspirations into concrete practices.
• Score: 0.5461938536945723
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) continues advancing, ensuring positive societal impacts becomes critical, especially as AI systems become increasingly ubiquitous in various aspects of life. However, developing "AI for good" poses substantial challenges around aligning systems with complex human values. Presently, we lack mature methods for addressing these challenges. This article presents and evaluates the Positive AI design method aimed at addressing this gap. The method provides a human-centered process to translate wellbeing aspirations into concrete practices. First, we explain the method's four key steps: contextualizing, operationalizing, optimizing, and implementing wellbeing supported by continuous measurement for feedback cycles. We then present a multiple case study where novice designers applied the method, revealing strengths and weaknesses related to efficacy and usability. Next, an expert evaluation study assessed the quality of the resulting concepts, rating them moderately high for feasibility, desirability, and plausibility of achieving intended wellbeing benefits. Together, these studies provide preliminary validation of the method's ability to improve AI design, while surfacing areas needing refinement like developing support for complex steps. Proposed adaptations such as examples and evaluation heuristics could address weaknesses. Further research should examine sustained application over multiple projects. This human-centered approach shows promise for realizing the vision of 'AI for Wellbeing' that does not just avoid harm, but actively benefits humanity.

Related papers

• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment. We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• What Makes an Evaluation Useful? Common Pitfalls and Best Practices [3.4740704830599385]
  We discuss the steps of the initial thought process, which connects threat modeling to evaluation design. We provide the characteristics and parameters that make an evaluation useful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-30T12:51:47Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Scaling of Search and Learning: A Roadmap to Reproduce o1 from Reinforcement Learning Perspective [77.94874338927492]
  OpenAI has claimed that the main techinique behinds o1 is the reinforcement learning. This paper analyzes the roadmap to achieving o1 from the perspective of reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T18:24:47Z)
• To Err Is AI! Debugging as an Intervention to Facilitate Appropriate Reliance on AI Systems [11.690126756498223]
  Vision for optimal human-AI collaboration requires 'appropriate reliance' of humans on AI systems. In practice, the performance disparity of machine learning models on out-of-distribution data makes dataset-specific performance feedback unreliable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T09:43:27Z)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential. evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved. This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)
• Exploration with Principles for Diverse AI Supervision [88.61687950039662]
  Training large transformers using next-token prediction has given rise to groundbreaking advancements in AI. While this generative AI approach has produced impressive results, it heavily leans on human supervision. This strong reliance on human oversight poses a significant hurdle to the advancement of AI innovation. We propose a novel paradigm termed Exploratory AI (EAI) aimed at autonomously generating high-quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:03:39Z)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
  This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI. It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems. We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Methodological reflections for AI alignment research using human feedback [0.0]
  AI alignment aims to investigate whether AI technologies align with human interests and values and function in a safe and ethical manner. LLMs have the potential to exhibit unintended behavior due to their ability to learn and adapt in ways that are difficult to predict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-22T14:27:33Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• A.I. Robustness: a Human-Centered Perspective on Technological Challenges and Opportunities [8.17368686298331]
  Robustness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems remains elusive and constitutes a key issue that impedes large-scale adoption. We introduce three concepts to organize and describe the literature both from a fundamental and applied point of view. We highlight the central role of humans in evaluating and enhancing AI robustness, considering the necessary knowledge humans can provide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T10:00:51Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Towards Understanding the Adversarial Vulnerability of Skeleton-based Action Recognition [133.35968094967626]
  Skeleton-based action recognition has attracted increasing attention due to its strong adaptability to dynamic circumstances. With the help of deep learning techniques, it has also witnessed substantial progress and currently achieved around 90% accuracy in benign environment. Research on the vulnerability of skeleton-based action recognition under different adversarial settings remains scant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T17:12:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.