4.6 Article

Cognitive Challenges in Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation

期刊

INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 678-696

出版社

INFORMS
DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.1079

关键词

future of work; artificial intelligence; machine learning; delegation; metaknowledge; human-AI collaboration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that humans can outperform AI when they collaborate in classification tasks, but only when the AI delegates work to humans. Humans, on the other hand, do not benefit from delegating work to AI. The lack of metaknowledge in humans leads to poor delegation decisions.
We study how humans make decisions when they collaborate with an artificial intelligence (AI) in a setting where humans and the AI perform classification tasks. Our experimental results suggest that humans and AI who work together can outperform the AI that outperforms humans when it works on its own. However, the combined performance improves only when the AI delegates work to humans but not when humans delegate work to the AI. The AI's delegation performance improved even when it delegated to low-performing subjects; by contrast, humans did not delegate well and did not benefit from delegation to the AI. This bad delegation performance cannot be explained with some kind of algorithm aversion. On the contrary, subjects acted rationally in an internally consistent manner by trying to follow a proven delegation strategy and appeared to appreciate the AI support. However, human performance suffered as a result of a lack of metaknowledge-that is, humans were not able to assess their own capabilities correctly, which in turn led to poor delegation decisions. Lacking metaknowledge, in contrast to reluctance to use AI, is an unconscious trait. It fundamentally limits how well human decision makers can collaborate with AI and other algorithms. The results have implications for the future of work, the design of human-AI collaborative environments, and education in the digital age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据