REVIEW 1 cited by
Towards a criteria-based approach to selecting human-AI interaction mode
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are now prevalent in many knowledge work industries. As AI becomes more capable and interactive, there is a growing need for guidance on how to employ AI most effectively. The A2C framework (Tariq, Chhetri, Nepal & Paris, 2024) distinguishes three decision-making modes for engaging AI: automation (AI completes a task, including decision/action), augmentation (AI supports human to decide) and collaboration (iterative interaction between human and AI). However, selecting the appropriate mode for a specific application is not always straightforward. The goal of the present study was to compile and trial a simple set of criteria to support recommendations about appropriate A2C mode for a given application. Drawing on human factors and computer science literature, we identified key criteria related to elements of the task, impacts on worker and support needs. From these criteria we built a scoring rubric with recommendation for A2C mode. As a preliminary test of this approach, we applied the criteria to cognitive task analysis (CTA) outputs from three tasks in the science domain - genome annotation, biological collections curation and protein crystallization - which provided insights into worker decision points, challenges and expert strategies. This paper describes the method for connecting CTA to A2C, reflecting on the challenges and future directions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
LLMs Are Not Yet Ready for Deepfake Image Detection
On a 100-image benchmark of real and fake faces, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok all fell short of dependable zero-shot deepfake detection, with accuracy varying by category and model.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.