Human-AI collectives produce the most accurate differential diagnoses
Authors:
N. Zöller,
J. Berger,
I. Lin,
N. Fu,
J. Komarneni,
G. Barabucci,
K. Laskowski,
V. Shia,
B. Harack,
E. A. Chu,
V. Trianni,
R. H. J. M. Kurvers,
S. M. Herzog
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), are increasingly being employed in high-stakes decisions that impact both individuals and society at large, often without adequate safeguards to ensure safety, quality, and equity. Yet LLMs hallucinate, lack common sense, and are biased - shortcomings that may reflect LLMs' inherent limitations and thus may not be remedied…
▽ More
Artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), are increasingly being employed in high-stakes decisions that impact both individuals and society at large, often without adequate safeguards to ensure safety, quality, and equity. Yet LLMs hallucinate, lack common sense, and are biased - shortcomings that may reflect LLMs' inherent limitations and thus may not be remedied by more sophisticated architectures, more data, or more human feedback. Relying solely on LLMs for complex, high-stakes decisions is therefore problematic. Here we present a hybrid collective intelligence system that mitigates these risks by leveraging the complementary strengths of human experience and the vast information processed by LLMs. We apply our method to open-ended medical diagnostics, combining 40,762 differential diagnoses made by physicians with the diagnoses of five state-of-the art LLMs across 2,133 medical cases. We show that hybrid collectives of physicians and LLMs outperform both single physicians and physician collectives, as well as single LLMs and LLM ensembles. This result holds across a range of medical specialties and professional experience, and can be attributed to humans' and LLMs' complementary contributions that lead to different kinds of errors. Our approach highlights the potential for collective human and machine intelligence to improve accuracy in complex, open-ended domains like medical diagnostics.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
How A/B testing changes the dynamics of information spreading on a social network
Authors:
Matteo Ottaviani,
Stefan M. Herzog,
Pietro Leonardo Nickl,
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen
Abstract:
A/B testing methodology is generally performed by private companies to increase user engagement and satisfaction about online features. Their usage is far from being transparent and may undermine user autonomy (e.g. polarizing individual opinions, mis- and dis- information spreading). For our analysis we leverage a crucial case study dataset (i.e. Upworthy) where news headlines were allocated to u…
▽ More
A/B testing methodology is generally performed by private companies to increase user engagement and satisfaction about online features. Their usage is far from being transparent and may undermine user autonomy (e.g. polarizing individual opinions, mis- and dis- information spreading). For our analysis we leverage a crucial case study dataset (i.e. Upworthy) where news headlines were allocated to users and reshuffled for optimizing clicks. Our centre of focus is to determine how and under which conditions A/B testing affects the distribution of content on the collective level, specifically on different social network structures. In order to achieve that, we set up an agent-based model reproducing social interaction and an individual decision-making model. Our preliminary results indicate that A/B testing has a substantial influence on the qualitative dynamics of information dissemination on a social network. Moreover, our modeling framework promisingly embeds conjecturing policy (e.g. nudging, boosting) interventions.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
