The true potential of human-AI collaboration lies in exploiting the complementary capabilities of humans and AI to achieve a joint performance superior to that of the individual AI or human, i.e., to achieve complementary team performance (CTP). To realize this complementarity potential, humans need to exercise discretion in following AI's advice, i.e., appropriately relying on the AI's advice. While previous work has focused on building a mental model of the AI to assess AI recommendations, recent research has shown that the mental model alone cannot explain appropriate reliance. We hypothesize that, in addition to the mental model, human learning is a key mediator of appropriate reliance and, thus, CTP. In this study, we demonstrate the relationship between learning and appropriate reliance in an experiment with 100 participants. This work provides fundamental concepts for analyzing reliance and derives implications for the effective design of human-AI decision-making.

No abstract

While recent advances in AI-based automated decision-making have shown many benefits for businesses and society, they also come at a cost. It has for long been known that a high level of automation of decisions can lead to various drawbacks, such as automation bias and deskilling. In particular, the deskilling of knowledge workers is a major issue, as they are the same people who should also train, challenge and evolve AI. To address this issue, we conceptualize a new class of DSS, namely Intelligent Decision Assistance (IDA) based on a literature review of two different research streams-DSS and automation. IDA supports knowledge workers without influencing them through automated decision-making. Specifically, we propose to use techniques of Explainable AI (XAI) while withholding concrete AI recommendations. To test this conceptualization, we develop hypotheses on the impacts of IDA and provide first evidence for their validity based on empirical studies in the literature.

No abstract

No abstract