Responsible (use of) AI

Although there is a rich history of philosophical definitions of ethics when applied to human behavior, applying the same concepts and principles to AI may be fraught with problems. Anthropomorphizing AI to have characteristics such as "ethics" may promote a dangerous, unrealistic expectation that AI can be trained to have inherent, guaranteed ethical behavior. The authors instead advocate for increased research into the ethical use of AI from initial ideation and design through operational use and sustainment. The authors advocate for five key research areas: (1) education in ethics and core AI concepts for AI developers, leaders, and users, (2) development and use of model cards or datasheets for datasets to provide transparency into the strengths, limits, and potential biases of a trained model, (3) employing human-centered design that seeks to understand human value structures within a task context and enable effective human-machine interaction through intuitive and transparent interfaces, (4) targeted use of run time assurance that monitors and modifies the inputs or outputs of a trained model when necessary to enforce ethical principles such as safety or limiting bias, and (5) developing best practices for the use of a joint human-AI co-creation and training experience to enable a shared mental model and higher performance through potential emergent behavior.

Defining human-AI teaming the human-centered way: a scoping review and network analysis

Introduction

With the advancement of technology and the increasing utilization of AI, the nature of human work is evolving, requiring individuals to collaborate not only with other humans but also with AI technologies to accomplish complex goals. This requires a shift in perspective from technology-driven questions to a human-centered research and design agenda putting people and evolving teams in the center of attention. A socio-technical approach is needed to view AI as more than just a technological tool, but as a team member, leading to the emergence of human-AI teaming (HAIT). In this new form of work, humans and AI synergistically combine their respective capabilities to accomplish shared goals.

Methods

The aim of our work is to uncover current research streams on HAIT and derive a unified understanding of the construct through a bibliometric network analysis, a scoping review and synthetization of a definition from a socio-technical point of view. In addition, antecedents and outcomes examined in the literature are extracted to guide future research in this field.

Results

Through network analysis, five clusters with different research focuses on HAIT were identified. These clusters revolve around (1) human and (2) task-dependent variables, (3) AI explainability, (4) AI-driven robotic systems, and (5) the effects of AI performance on human perception. Despite these diverse research focuses, the current body of literature is predominantly driven by a technology-centric and engineering perspective, with no consistent definition or terminology of HAIT emerging to date.

Discussion

We propose a unifying definition combining a human-centered and team-oriented perspective as well as summarize what is still needed in future research regarding HAIT. Thus, this work contributes to support the idea of the Frontiers Research Topic of a theoretical and conceptual basis for human work with AI systems.

Empowering human-AI teams via Intentional Behavioral Synchrony

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) proliferates across various sectors such as healthcare, transportation, energy, and military applications, the collaboration between human-AI teams is becoming increasingly critical. Understanding the interrelationships between system elements - humans and AI - is vital to achieving the best outcomes within individual team members' capabilities. This is also crucial in designing better AI algorithms and finding favored scenarios for joint AI-human missions that capitalize on the unique capabilities of both elements. In this conceptual study, we introduce Intentional Behavioral Synchrony (IBS) as a synchronization mechanism between humans and AI to set up a trusting relationship without compromising mission goals. IBS aims to create a sense of similarity between AI decisions and human expectations, drawing on psychological concepts that can be integrated into AI algorithms. We also discuss the potential of using multimodal fusion to set up a feedback loop between the two partners. Our aim with this work is to start a research trend centered on exploring innovative ways of deploying synchrony between teams of non-human members. Our goal is to foster a better sense of collaboration and trust between humans and AI, resulting in more effective joint missions.

How Clinicians Perceive Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Technologies in Diagnostic Decision Making: Mixed Methods Approach

Background

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies, AI algorithms are being embedded into various health information technologies that assist clinicians in clinical decision making.

Objective

This study aimed to explore how clinicians perceive AI assistance in diagnostic decision making and suggest the paths forward for AI-human teaming for clinical decision making in health care.

Methods

This study used a mixed methods approach, utilizing hierarchical linear modeling and sentiment analysis through natural language understanding techniques.

Results

A total of 114 clinicians participated in online simulation surveys in 2020 and 2021. These clinicians studied family medicine and used AI algorithms to aid in patient diagnosis. Their overall sentiment toward AI-assisted diagnosis was positive and comparable with diagnoses made without the assistance of AI. However, AI-guided decision making was not congruent with the way clinicians typically made decisions in diagnosing illnesses. In a quantitative survey, clinicians reported perceiving current AI assistance as not likely to enhance diagnostic capability and negatively influenced their overall performance (β=–0.421, P=.02). Instead, clinicians’ diagnostic capabilities tended to be associated with well-known parameters, such as education, age, and daily habit of technology use on social media platforms.

Conclusions

This study elucidated clinicians’ current perceptions and sentiments toward AI-enabled diagnosis. Although the sentiment was positive, the current form of AI assistance may not be linked with efficient decision making, as AI algorithms are not well aligned with subjective human reasoning in clinical diagnosis. Developers and policy makers in health could gather behavioral data from clinicians in various disciplines to help align AI algorithms with the unique subjective patterns of reasoning that humans employ in clinical diagnosis.