Collective Attention in Human-AI Teams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17489v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 13:46:00 GMT
• Title: Collective Attention in Human-AI Teams
• Authors: Josie Zvelebilova, Saiph Savage, Christoph Riedl,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.312803416185713
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: How does the presence of an AI assistant affect the collective attention of a team? We study 20 human teams of 3-4 individuals paired with one voice-only AI assistant during a challenging puzzle task. Teams are randomly assigned to an AI assistant with a human- or robotic-sounding voice that provides either helpful or misleading information about the task. Treating each individual AI interjection as a treatment intervention, we identify the causal effects of the AI on dynamic group processes involving language use. Our findings demonstrate that the AI significantly affects what teams discuss, how they discuss it, and the alignment of their mental models. Teams adopt AI-introduced language for both terms directly related to the task and for peripheral terms, even when they (a) recognize the unhelpful nature of the AI, (b) do not consider the AI a genuine team member, and (c) do not trust the AI. The process of language adaptation appears to be automatic, despite doubts about the AI's competence. 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. Understanding this mechanism will help CSCW researchers design AI systems that enhance team collective intelligence by optimizing collective attention.

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)
• Navigating AI Fallibility: Examining People's Reactions and Perceptions of AI after Encountering Personality Misrepresentations [7.256711790264119]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T21:27:15Z)
• Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making [25.913473823070863]
  Existing research on human-AI collaborative decision-making focuses mainly on the interaction between AI and individual decision-makers. This paper presents a wizard-of-oz study in which two participants and an AI form a committee to rank three English essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T11:07:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
  There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)
• The Threat of Offensive AI to Organizations [52.011307264694665]
  This survey explores the threat of offensive AI on organizations. First, we discuss how AI changes the adversary's methods, strategies, goals, and overall attack model. Then, through a literature review, we identify 33 offensive AI capabilities which adversaries can use to enhance their attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-30T01:03:28Z)
• 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)
• 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.