A framework applying classical reliability, resilience, and human-factors engineering to AI systems, with a small subjective case study of OpenAI status incidents.
AI Oversight and Human Mistakes: Evidence from Centre Court
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Powered by the increasing predictive capabilities of machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to overrule human mistakes in many settings. We provide the first field evidence that the use of AI oversight can impact human decision-making. We investigate one of the highest visibility settings where AI oversight has occurred: Hawk-Eye review of umpires in top tennis tournaments. We find that umpires lowered their overall mistake rate after the introduction of Hawk-Eye review, but also that umpires increased the rate at which they called balls in, producing a shift from making Type II errors (calling a ball out when in) to Type I errors (calling a ball in when out). We structurally estimate the psychological costs of being overruled by AI using a model of attention-constrained umpires, and our results suggest that because of these costs, umpires cared 37% more about Type II errors under AI oversight.
fields
cs.AI 1years
2024 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Reliability, Resilience and Human Factors Engineering for Trustworthy AI Systems
A framework applying classical reliability, resilience, and human-factors engineering to AI systems, with a small subjective case study of OpenAI status incidents.