skip to main content

Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 2001851

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Many AI system designers grapple with how best to collect human input for different types of training data. Online crowds provide a cheap on-demand source of intelligence, but they often lack the expertise required in many domains. Experts offer tacit knowledge and more nuanced input, but they are harder to recruit. To explore this trade off, we compared novices and experts in terms of performance and perceptions on human intelligence tasks in the context of designing a text-based conversational agent. We developed a preliminary chatbot that simulates conversations with someone seeking mental health advice to help educate volunteer listeners at 7cups.com. We then recruited experienced listeners (domain experts) and MTurk novice workers (crowd workers) to conduct tasks to improve the chatbot with different levels of complexity. Novice crowds perform comparably to experts on tasks that only require natural language understanding, such as correcting how the system classifies a user statement. For more generative tasks, like creating new lines of chatbot dialogue, the experts demonstrated higher quality, novelty, and emotion. We also uncovered a motivational gap: crowd workers enjoyed the interactive tasks, while experts found the work to be tedious and repetitive. We offer design considerations for allocating crowd workers andmore »experts on input tasks for AI systems, and for better motivating experts to participate in low-level data work for AI.« less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available October 14, 2023
  2. Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 20, 2023
  3. Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 20, 2023
  4. Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 20, 2023
  5. Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 20, 2023
  6. Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 13, 2023
  7. Free, publicly-accessible full text available April 27, 2023
  8. Free, publicly-accessible full text available April 27, 2023
  9. With the growing industry applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, pre-trained models and APIs have emerged and greatly lowered the barrier of building AI-powered products. However, novice AI application designers often struggle to recognize the inherent algorithmic trade-offs and evaluate model fairness before making informed design decisions. In this study, we examined the Objective Revision Evaluation System (ORES), a machine learning (ML) API in Wikipedia used by the community to build anti-vandalism tools. We designed an interactive visualization system to communicate model threshold trade-offs and fairness in ORES. We evaluated our system by conducting 10 in-depth interviews with potential ORES application designers. We found that our system helped application designers who have limited ML backgrounds learn about in-context ML knowledge, recognize inherent value trade-offs, and make design decisions that aligned with their goals. By demonstrating our system in a real-world domain, this paper presents a novel visualization approach to facilitate greater accessibility and human agency in AI application design.
  10. Recent work in fair machine learning has proposed dozens of technical definitions of algorithmic fairness and methods for enforcing these definitions. However, we still lack an understanding of how to develop machine learning systems with fairness criteria that reflect relevant stakeholders’ nuanced viewpoints in real-world contexts. To address this gap, we propose a framework for eliciting stakeholders’ subjective fairness notions. Combining a user interface that allows stakeholders to examine the data and the algorithm’s predictions with an interview protocol to probe stakeholders’ thoughts while they are interacting with the interface, we can identify stakeholders’ fairness beliefs and principles. We conduct a user study to evaluate our framework in the setting of a child maltreatment predictive system. Our evaluations show that the framework allows stakeholders to comprehensively convey their fairness viewpoints. We also discuss how our results can inform the design of predictive systems.