The Value of AI Advice: Personalized and Value-Maximizing AI Advisors Are Necessary to Reliably Benefit Experts and Organizations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19530v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:50:54 GMT
• Title: The Value of AI Advice: Personalized and Value-Maximizing AI Advisors Are Necessary to Reliably Benefit Experts and Organizations
• Authors: Nicholas Wolczynski, Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Tong Wang,
• Abstract summary: Despite advances in AI's performance, AI advisors can undermine experts' decisions and increase the time and effort experts must invest to make decisions. We stress the importance of assessing the value AI advice brings to real-world contexts when designing and evaluating AI advisors. Our results highlight the need for system-level, value-driven development of AI advisors that advise selectively, are tailored to experts' unique behaviors, and are optimized for context-specific trade-offs between decision improvements and advising costs.
• Score: 8.434663608756253
• License:
• Abstract: Despite advances in AI's performance and interpretability, AI advisors can undermine experts' decisions and increase the time and effort experts must invest to make decisions. Consequently, AI systems deployed in high-stakes settings often fail to consistently add value across contexts and can even diminish the value that experts alone provide. Beyond harm in specific domains, such outcomes impede progress in research and practice, underscoring the need to understand when and why different AI advisors add or diminish value. To bridge this gap, we stress the importance of assessing the value AI advice brings to real-world contexts when designing and evaluating AI advisors. Building on this perspective, we characterize key pillars -- pathways through which AI advice impacts value -- and develop a framework that incorporates these pillars to create reliable, personalized, and value-adding advisors. Our results highlight the need for system-level, value-driven development of AI advisors that advise selectively, are tailored to experts' unique behaviors, and are optimized for context-specific trade-offs between decision improvements and advising costs. They also reveal how the lack of inclusion of these pillars in the design of AI advising systems may be contributing to the failures observed in practical applications.

Related papers

• Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development [41.64451715899638]
  High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent. This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T06:00:14Z)
• Human services organizations and the responsible integration of AI: Considering ethics and contextualizing risk(s) [0.0]
  Authors argue that ethical concerns about AI deployment vary significantly based on implementation context and specific use cases. They propose a dimensional risk assessment approach that considers factors like data sensitivity, professional oversight requirements, and potential impact on client wellbeing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T19:38:21Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• 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)
• Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations [0.0]
  This paper asks whether evaluations significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and our ability to mitigate those risks. It concludes with considerations for improving evaluation practices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators, and academic researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:42:51Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Beyond Recommender: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Different AI Roles in AI-Assisted Decision Making [48.179458030691286]
  We examine three AI roles: Recommender, Analyzer, and Devil's Advocate. Our results show each role's distinct strengths and limitations in task performance, reliance appropriateness, and user experience. These insights offer valuable implications for designing AI assistants with adaptive functional roles according to different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:32:28Z)
• Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalog [0.0]
  It is clear that AI and business models based on it can only reach their full potential if AI applications are developed according to high quality standards. The issue of the trustworthiness of AI applications is crucial and is the subject of numerous major publications. This AI assessment catalog addresses exactly this point and is intended for two target groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T08:07:18Z)
• Doubting AI Predictions: Influence-Driven Second Opinion Recommendation [92.30805227803688]
  We propose a way to augment human-AI collaboration by building on a common organizational practice: identifying experts who are likely to provide complementary opinions. The proposed approach aims to leverage productive disagreement by identifying whether some experts are likely to disagree with an algorithmic assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T20:35:07Z)
• 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)
• Decision Rule Elicitation for Domain Adaptation [93.02675868486932]
  Human-in-the-loop machine learning is widely used in artificial intelligence (AI) to elicit labels from experts. In this work, we allow experts to additionally produce decision rules describing their decision-making. We show that decision rule elicitation improves domain adaptation of the algorithm and helps to propagate expert's knowledge to the AI model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T08:07:22Z)

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.