Generative AI Enhances Team Performance and Reduces Need for Traditional Teams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.17924v1
• Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:47:03 GMT
• Title: Generative AI Enhances Team Performance and Reduces Need for Traditional Teams
• Authors: Ning Li, Huaikang Zhou, Kris Mikel-Hong,
• Abstract summary: We show that teams augmented with generative AI significantly outperformed those relying solely on human collaboration. Our analysis suggests that centralized AI usage by a few team members is more effective than distributed engagement.
• Score: 1.5031024722977635
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have transformed collaborative work processes, yet the impact on team performance remains underexplored. Here we examine the role of generative AI in enhancing or replacing traditional team dynamics using a randomized controlled experiment with 435 participants across 122 teams. We show that teams augmented with generative AI significantly outperformed those relying solely on human collaboration across various performance measures. Interestingly, teams with multiple AIs did not exhibit further gains, indicating diminishing returns with increased AI integration. Our analysis suggests that centralized AI usage by a few team members is more effective than distributed engagement. Additionally, individual-AI pairs matched the performance of conventional teams, suggesting a reduced need for traditional team structures in some contexts. However, despite this capability, individual-AI pairs still fell short of the performance levels achieved by AI-assisted teams. These findings underscore that while generative AI can replace some traditional team functions, more comprehensively integrating AI within team structures provides superior benefits, enhancing overall effectiveness beyond individual efforts.

Related papers

• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Comparing Zealous and Restrained AI Recommendations in a Real-World Human-AI Collaboration Task [11.040918613968854]
  We argue that careful exploitation of the tradeoff between precision and recall can significantly improve team performance. We analyze the performance of 78 professional annotators working with a) no AI assistance, b) a high-precision "restrained" AI, and c) a high-recall "zealous" AI in over 3,466 person-hours of annotation work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T23:19:19Z)
• Generative Diffusion-based Contract Design for Efficient AI Twins Migration in Vehicular Embodied AI Networks [55.15079732226397]
  Embodied AI is a rapidly advancing field that bridges the gap between cyberspace and physical space. In VEANET, embodied AI twins act as in-vehicle AI assistants to perform diverse tasks supporting autonomous driving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T02:20:42Z)
• Collective Attention in Human-AI Teams [4.312803416185713]
  The presence of an AI assistant significantly impacts team collective attention by modulating various aspects of shared cognition. This study contributes to human-AI teaming research by highlighting collective attention as a central mechanism through which AI systems in team settings influence team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T13:46:00Z)
• DanZero+: Dominating the GuanDan Game through Reinforcement Learning [95.90682269990705]
  We develop an AI program for an exceptionally complex and popular card game called GuanDan. We first put forward an AI program named DanZero for this game. In order to further enhance the AI's capabilities, we apply policy-based reinforcement learning algorithm to GuanDan.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-05T08:07:32Z)
• Evaluation of Human-AI Teams for Learned and Rule-Based Agents in Hanabi [0.0]
  We evaluate teams of humans and AI agents in the cooperative card game emphHanabi with both rule-based and learning-based agents. We find that humans have a clear preference toward a rule-based AI teammate over a state-of-the-art learning-based AI teammate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-15T22:19:15Z)
• Who/What is My Teammate? Team Composition Considerations in Human-AI Teaming [1.3477333339913569]
  This paper investigates essential aspects of human-AI teaming such as team performance, team situation awareness, and perceived team cognition. Perceived team cognition was highest in human-only teams, with mixed composition teams reporting perceived team cognition 58% below the all-human teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-23T19:06:18Z)
• Game Plan: What AI can do for Football, and What Football can do for AI [83.79507996785838]
  Predictive and prescriptive football analytics require new developments and progress at the intersection of statistical learning, game theory, and computer vision. We illustrate that football analytics is a game changer of tremendous value, in terms of not only changing the game of football itself, but also in terms of what this domain can mean for the field of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-18T10:26:02Z)
• Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance [44.730580857733]
  Prior studies observed improvements from explanations only when the AI, alone, outperformed both the human and the best team. We conduct mixed-method user studies on three datasets, where an AI with accuracy comparable to humans helps participants solve a task. We find explanations increase the chance that humans will accept the AI's recommendation, regardless of its correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T03:34:04Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

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.