Although artificial intelligence holds promise for addressing societ al challenges, issues of exactly which tasks to automate and the extent to do so remain understudied. We approach the problem of task delegability from a human-centered perspective by developing a framework on human perception of task delegation to artificial intelligence. We consider four high-level factors that can contribute to a delegation decision: motivation, difficulty, risk, and trust. To obtain an empirical understanding of human preferences in different tasks, we build a dataset of 100 tasks from academic papers, popular media portrayal of AI, and everyday life. For each task, we administer a survey to collect judgments of each factor and ask subjects to pick the extent to which they prefer AI involvement. We find little preference for full AI control and a strong preference for machine-in-the-loop designs, in which humans play the leading role. Our framework can effectively predict human preferences in degrees of AI assistance. Among the four factors, trust is the most predictive of human preferences of optimal human-machine delegation. This framework represents a first step towards characterizing human preferences of automation across tasks. We hope this work may encourage and aid in future efforts towards understanding such individual attitudes; our goal is to inform the public and the AI research community rather than dictating any direction in technology development.
Alternatively, a machine-in-the-loop paradigm places the human in the primary position of action and control while the machine assists. Examples of this include a creative-writing assistance system that generates contextual suggestions @cite_22 @cite_18 , and predicting situations in which people are likely to make errors in judgments in decision-making @cite_19 . Even tasks which should not be automated may still benefit from machine assistance, especially if human performance is not the upper bound as kleinberg-bail found in judge bail decisions @cite_39 .
@cite_19 @cite_18 @cite_22 @cite_39
1690838869 2745133928 2142544755 2949390961
One subclass of human computation applications are those directed at tasks that involve planning (e.g. tour planning) and scheduling (e.g. conference scheduling). Interestingly, work on these systems shows that even primitive forms of automated oversight on the human contributors helps in significantly improving the effectiveness of the humans crowd. In this paper, we argue that the automated oversight used in these systems can be viewed as a primitive automated planner, and that there are several opportunities for more sophisticated automated planning in effectively steering the crowd. Straightforward adaptation of current planning technology is however hampered by the mismatch between the capabilities of human workers and automated planners. We identify and partially address two important challenges that need to be overcome before such adaptation of planning technology can occur: (i) interpreting inputs of the human workers (and the requester) and (ii) steering or critiquing plans produced by the human workers, armed only with incomplete domain and preference models. To these ends, we describe the implementation of AI-MIX, a tour plan generation system that uses automated checks and alerts to improve the quality of plans created by human workers; and present a preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of steering provided by automated planning. Evaluating whether machines improve on human performance is one of the central questions of machine learning. However, there are many domains where the data is selectively labeled, in the sense that the observed outcomes are themselves a consequence of the existing choices of the human decision-makers. For instance, in the context of judicial bail decisions, we observe the outcome of whether a defendant fails to return for their court appearance only if the human judge decides to release the defendant on bail. This selective labeling makes it harder to evaluate predictive models as the instances for which outcomes are observed do not represent a random sample of the population. Here we propose a novel framework for evaluating the performance of predictive models on selectively labeled data. We develop an approach called contraction which allows us to compare the performance of predictive models and human decision-makers without resorting to counterfactual inference. Our methodology harnesses the heterogeneity of human decision-makers and facilitates effective evaluation of predictive models even in the presence of unmeasured confounders (unobservables) which influence both human decisions and the resulting outcomes. Experimental results on real world datasets spanning diverse domains such as health care, insurance, and criminal justice demonstrate the utility of our evaluation metric in comparing human decisions and machine predictions. Basic decisions, such as judging a person as a friend or foe, involve categorizing novel stimuli. Recent work finds that people's category judgments are guided by a small set of examples that are retrieved from memory at decision time. This limited and stochastic retrieval places limits on human performance for probabilistic classification decisions. In light of this capacity limitation, recent work finds that idealizing training items, such that the saliency of ambiguous cases is reduced, improves human performance on novel test items. One shortcoming of previous work in idealization is that category distributions were idealized in an ad hoc or heuristic fashion. In this contribution, we take a first principles approach to constructing idealized training sets. We apply a machine teaching procedure to a cognitive model that is either limited capacity (as humans are) or unlimited capacity (as most machine learning systems are). As predicted, we find that the machine teacher recommends idealized training sets. We also find that human learners perform best when training recommendations from the machine teacher are based on a limited-capacity model. As predicted, to the extent that the learning model used by the machine teacher conforms to the true nature of human learners, the recommendations of the machine teacher prove effective. Our results provide a normative basis (given capacity constraints) for idealization procedures and offer a novel selection procedure for models of human learning. We present a novel approach to shared control of human-machine systems. Our method assumes no a priori knowledge of the system dynamics. Instead, we learn both the dynamics and information about the user's interaction from observation through the use of the Koopman operator. Using the learned model, we define an optimization problem to compute the optimal policy for a given task, and compare the user input to the optimal input. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach with a user study. We also analyze the individual nature of the learned models by comparing the effectiveness of our approach when the demonstration data comes from a user's own interactions, from the interactions of a group of users and from a domain expert. Positive results include statistically significant improvements on task metrics when comparing a user-only control paradigm with our shared control paradigm. Surprising results include findings that suggest that individualizing the model based on a user's own data does not effect the ability to learn a useful dynamic system. We explore this tension as it relates to developing human-in-the-loop systems further in the discussion.