REVIEW 2 cited by
When Copilot Becomes Autopilot: Generative AI's Critical Risk to Knowledge Work and a Critical Solution
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
When Copilot Becomes Autopilot: Generative AI's Critical Risk to Knowledge Work and a Critical Solution
read the original abstract
Generative AI, with its tendency to "hallucinate" incorrect results, may pose a risk to knowledge work by introducing errors. On the other hand, it may also provide unprecedented opportunities for users, particularly non-experts, to learn and apply advanced software features and greatly increase the scope and complexity of tasks they can successfully achieve. As an example of a complex knowledge workflow that is subject to risks and opportunities from generative AI, we consider the spreadsheet. AI hallucinations are an important challenge, but they are not the greatest risk posed by generative AI to spreadsheet workflows. Rather, as more work can be safely delegated to AI, the risk is that human critical thinking -- the ability to holistically and rigorously evaluate a problem and its solutions -- is degraded in the process. The solution is to design the interfaces of generative AI systems deliberately to foster and encourage critical thinking in knowledge work, building primarily on a long history of research on critical thinking tools for education. We discuss a prototype system for the activity of critical shortlisting in spreadsheets. The system uses generative AI to suggest shortlisting criteria and applies these criteria to sort rows in a spreadsheet. It also generates "provocations": short text snippets that critique the AI-generated criteria, highlighting risks, shortcomings, and alternatives. Our prototype opens up a rich and completely unexplored design space of critical thinking tools for modern AI-assisted knowledge work. We outline a research agenda for AI as a critic or provocateur, including questions about where and when provocations should appear, their form and content, and potential design trade-offs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Programmers Are Poor and Overconfident Judges of LLM-Generated Assertions
Developers are nearly three times more likely to correctly accept correct LLM assertions than to reject incorrect ones, and accompanying natural-language comments provide no net benefit and can increase overconfidence.
-
How Do Software Professionals Evaluate AI-Generated Code? (Registered Report)
A registered protocol will use survey responses plus laddering and semi-structured interviews to build a grounded theory of how software professionals evaluate AI-generated code.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.