Assistive AI for Augmenting Human Decision-making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14353v2
• Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 18:41:41 GMT
• Title: Assistive AI for Augmenting Human Decision-making
• Authors: Natabara Máté Gyöngyössy, Bernát Török, Csilla Farkas, Laura Lucaj, Attila Menyhárd, Krisztina Menyhárd-Balázs, András Simonyi, Patrick van der Smagt, Zsolt Ződi, András Lőrincz,
• Abstract summary: The paper shows how AI can assist in the complex process of decision-making while maintaining human oversight. Central to our framework are the principles of privacy, accountability, and credibility.
• Score: 3.379906135388703
• License:
• Abstract: Regulatory frameworks for the use of AI are emerging. However, they trail behind the fast-evolving malicious AI technologies that can quickly cause lasting societal damage. In response, we introduce a pioneering Assistive AI framework designed to enhance human decision-making capabilities. This framework aims to establish a trust network across various fields, especially within legal contexts, serving as a proactive complement to ongoing regulatory efforts. Central to our framework are the principles of privacy, accountability, and credibility. In our methodology, the foundation of reliability of information and information sources is built upon the ability to uphold accountability, enhance security, and protect privacy. This approach supports, filters, and potentially guides communication, thereby empowering individuals and communities to make well-informed decisions based on cutting-edge advancements in AI. Our framework uses the concept of Boards as proxies to collectively ensure that AI-assisted decisions are reliable, accountable, and in alignment with societal values and legal standards. Through a detailed exploration of our framework, including its main components, operations, and sample use cases, the paper shows how AI can assist in the complex process of decision-making while maintaining human oversight. The proposed framework not only extends regulatory landscapes but also highlights the synergy between AI technology and human judgement, underscoring the potential of AI to serve as a vital instrument in discerning reality from fiction and thus enhancing the decision-making process. Furthermore, we provide domain-specific use cases to highlight the applicability of our framework.

Related papers

• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
  The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI. This highlights the urgent need for international regulation. This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• AI Potentiality and Awareness: A Position Paper from the Perspective of Human-AI Teaming in Cybersecurity [18.324118502535775]
  We argue that human-AI teaming is worthwhile in cybersecurity. We emphasize the importance of a balanced approach that incorporates AI's computational power with human expertise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T01:20:44Z)
• Responsible AI Implementation: A Human-centered Framework for Accelerating the Innovation Process [0.8481798330936974]
  This paper proposes a theoretical framework for responsible artificial intelligence (AI) implementation. The proposed framework emphasizes a synergistic business technology approach for the agile co-creation process. The framework emphasizes establishing and maintaining trust throughout the human-centered design and agile development of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-15T06:24:01Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)
• 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)
• Designing for Human Rights in AI [0.0]
  AI systems can help us make evidence-driven, efficient decisions, but can also confront us with unjustified, discriminatory decisions. It is becoming evident that these technological developments are consequential to people's fundamental human rights. Technical solutions to these complex socio-ethical problems are often developed without empirical study of societal context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-11T09:21:10Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

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.