Navigating AI Fallibility: Examining People's Reactions and Perceptions of AI after Encountering Personality Misrepresentations
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16355v1
- Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 21:27:15 GMT
- Title: Navigating AI Fallibility: Examining People's Reactions and Perceptions of AI after Encountering Personality Misrepresentations
- Authors: Qiaosi Wang, Chidimma L. Anyi, Vedant Das Swain, Ashok K. Goel,
- Abstract summary: Hyper-personalized AI systems profile people's characteristics to provide personalized recommendations.
These systems are not immune to errors when making inferences about people's most personal traits.
We present two studies to examine how people react and perceive AI after encountering personality misrepresentations.
- Score: 7.256711790264119
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Many hyper-personalized AI systems profile people's characteristics (e.g., personality traits) to provide personalized recommendations. These systems are increasingly used to facilitate interactions among people, such as providing teammate recommendations. Despite improved accuracy, such systems are not immune to errors when making inferences about people's most personal traits. These errors manifested as AI misrepresentations. However, the repercussions of such AI misrepresentations are unclear, especially on people's reactions and perceptions of the AI. We present two studies to examine how people react and perceive the AI after encountering personality misrepresentations in AI-facilitated team matching in a higher education context. Through semi-structured interviews (n=20) and a survey experiment (n=198), we pinpoint how people's existing and newly acquired AI knowledge could shape their perceptions and reactions of the AI after encountering AI misrepresentations. Specifically, we identified three rationales that people adopted through knowledge acquired from AI (mis)representations: AI works like a machine, human, and/or magic. These rationales are highly connected to people's reactions of over-trusting, rationalizing, and forgiving of AI misrepresentations. Finally, we found that people's existing AI knowledge, i.e., AI literacy, could moderate people's changes in their trust in AI after encountering AI misrepresentations, but not changes in people's social perceptions of AI. We discuss the role of people's AI knowledge when facing AI fallibility and implications for designing responsible mitigation and repair strategies.
Related papers
- Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed.
We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview.
We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z) - Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time.
We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups.
If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z) - Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior [14.904401331154062]
People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted.
To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-06T00:33:08Z) - Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps.
We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches.
We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z) - On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Bias [0.0]
We aim to shed light on the potential to influence automation bias by explainable AI (XAI)
We conduct an online experiment with regard to hotel review classifications and discuss first results.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-19T12:54:23Z) - Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations.
It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z) - The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations.
We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z) - Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being.
For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z) - Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society.
A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests.
This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z) - "Weak AI" is Likely to Never Become "Strong AI", So What is its Greatest
Value for us? [4.497097230665825]
Many researchers argue that little substantial progress has been made for AI in recent decades.
Author explains why controversies about AI exist; (2) discriminates two paradigms of AI research, termed "weak AI" and "strong AI"
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-29T02:57:48Z) - A clarification of misconceptions, myths and desired status of
artificial intelligence [0.0]
We present a perspective on the desired and current status of AI in relation to machine learning and statistics.
Our discussion is intended to uncurtain the veil of vagueness surrounding AI to see its true countenance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-03T17:22:53Z)
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.