-
Bending the Automation Bias Curve: A Study of Human and AI-based Decision Making in National Security Contexts
Authors:
Michael C. Horowitz,
Lauren Kahn
Abstract:
Uses of artificial intelligence (AI), especially those powered by machine learning approaches, are growing in sectors and societies around the world. How will AI adoption proceed, especially in the international security realm? Research on automation bias suggests that humans can often be overconfident in AI, whereas research on algorithm aversion shows that, as the stakes of a decision rise, huma…
▽ More
Uses of artificial intelligence (AI), especially those powered by machine learning approaches, are growing in sectors and societies around the world. How will AI adoption proceed, especially in the international security realm? Research on automation bias suggests that humans can often be overconfident in AI, whereas research on algorithm aversion shows that, as the stakes of a decision rise, humans become more cautious about trusting algorithms. We theorize about the relationship between background knowledge about AI, trust in AI, and how these interact with other factors to influence the probability of automation bias in the international security context. We test these in a preregistered task identification experiment across a representative sample of 9000 adults in 9 countries with varying levels of AI industries. The results strongly support the theory, especially concerning AI background knowledge. A version of the Dunning Kruger effect appears to be at play, whereby those with the lowest level of experience with AI are slightly more likely to be algorithm-averse, then automation bias occurs at lower levels of knowledge before leveling off as a respondent's AI background reaches the highest levels. Additional results show effects from the task's difficulty, overall AI trust, and whether a human or AI decision aid is described as highly competent or less competent.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Adopting AI: How Familiarity Breeds Both Trust and Contempt
Authors:
Michael C. Horowitz,
Lauren Kahn,
Julia Macdonald,
Jacquelyn Schneider
Abstract:
Despite pronouncements about the inevitable diffusion of artificial intelligence and autonomous technologies, in practice it is human behavior, not technology in a vacuum, that dictates how technology seeps into -- and changes -- societies. In order to better understand how human preferences shape technological adoption and the spread of AI-enabled autonomous technologies, we look at representativ…
▽ More
Despite pronouncements about the inevitable diffusion of artificial intelligence and autonomous technologies, in practice it is human behavior, not technology in a vacuum, that dictates how technology seeps into -- and changes -- societies. In order to better understand how human preferences shape technological adoption and the spread of AI-enabled autonomous technologies, we look at representative adult samples of US public opinion in 2018 and 2020 on the use of four types of autonomous technologies: vehicles, surgery, weapons, and cyber defense. By focusing on these four diverse uses of AI-enabled autonomy that span transportation, medicine, and national security, we exploit the inherent variation between these AI-enabled autonomous use cases. We find that those with familiarity and expertise with AI and similar technologies were more likely to support all of the autonomous applications we tested (except weapons) than those with a limited understanding of the technology. Individuals that had already delegated the act of driving by using ride-share apps were also more positive about autonomous vehicles. However, familiarity cut both ways; individuals are also less likely to support AI-enabled technologies when applied directly to their life, especially if technology automates tasks they are already familiar with operating. Finally, opposition to AI-enabled military applications has slightly increased over time.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Study Panel Report
Authors:
Michael L. Littman,
Ifeoma Ajunwa,
Guy Berger,
Craig Boutilier,
Morgan Currie,
Finale Doshi-Velez,
Gillian Hadfield,
Michael C. Horowitz,
Charles Isbell,
Hiroaki Kitano,
Karen Levy,
Terah Lyons,
Melanie Mitchell,
Julie Shah,
Steven Sloman,
Shannon Vallor,
Toby Walsh
Abstract:
In September 2021, the "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the second report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Michael Littman of Brown University. The report, entitled "Gathering Strengt…
▽ More
In September 2021, the "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the second report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Michael Littman of Brown University. The report, entitled "Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms," answers a set of 14 questions probing critical areas of AI development addressing the major risks and dangers of AI, its effects on society, its public perception and the future of the field. The report concludes that AI has made a major leap from the lab to people's lives in recent years, which increases the urgency to understand its potential negative effects. The questions were developed by the AI100 Standing Committee, chaired by Peter Stone of the University of Texas at Austin, consisting of a group of AI leaders with expertise in computer science, sociology, ethics, economics, and other disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Forecasting AI Progress: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers
Authors:
Baobao Zhang,
Noemi Dreksler,
Markus Anderljung,
Lauren Kahn,
Charlie Giattino,
Allan Dafoe,
Michael C. Horowitz
Abstract:
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are sha** modern life, from transportation, health care, science, finance, to national defense. Forecasts of AI development could help improve policy- and decision-making. We report the results from a large survey of AI and machine learning (ML) researchers on their beliefs about progress in AI. The survey, fielded in late 2019, elicited forecasts for nea…
▽ More
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are sha** modern life, from transportation, health care, science, finance, to national defense. Forecasts of AI development could help improve policy- and decision-making. We report the results from a large survey of AI and machine learning (ML) researchers on their beliefs about progress in AI. The survey, fielded in late 2019, elicited forecasts for near-term AI development milestones and high- or human-level machine intelligence, defined as when machines are able to accomplish every or almost every task humans are able to do currently. As part of this study, we re-contacted respondents from a highly-cited study by Grace et al. (2018), in which AI/ML researchers gave forecasts about high-level machine intelligence and near-term milestones in AI development. Results from our 2019 survey show that, in aggregate, AI/ML researchers surveyed placed a 50% likelihood of human-level machine intelligence being achieved by 2060. The results show researchers newly contacted in 2019 expressed similar beliefs about the progress of advanced AI as respondents in the Grace et al. (2018) survey. For the recontacted participants from the Grace et al. (2018) study, the aggregate forecast for a 50% likelihood of high-level machine intelligence shifted from 2062 to 2076, although this change is not statistically significant, likely due to the small size of our panel sample. Forecasts of several near-term AI milestones have reduced in time, suggesting more optimism about AI progress. Finally, AI/ML researchers also exhibited significant optimism about how human-level machine intelligence will impact society.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers
Authors:
Baobao Zhang,
Markus Anderljung,
Lauren Kahn,
Noemi Dreksler,
Michael C. Horowitz,
Allan Dafoe
Abstract:
Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) researchers play an important role in the ethics and governance of AI, including taking action against what they perceive to be unethical uses of AI (Belfield, 2020; Van Noorden, 2020). Nevertheless, this influential group's attitudes are not well understood, which undermines our ability to discern consensuses or disagreements between AI/ML re…
▽ More
Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) researchers play an important role in the ethics and governance of AI, including taking action against what they perceive to be unethical uses of AI (Belfield, 2020; Van Noorden, 2020). Nevertheless, this influential group's attitudes are not well understood, which undermines our ability to discern consensuses or disagreements between AI/ML researchers. To examine these researchers' views, we conducted a survey of those who published in the top AI/ML conferences (N = 524). We compare these results with those from a 2016 survey of AI/ML researchers (Grace, Salvatier, Dafoe, Zhang, & Evans, 2018) and a 2018 survey of the US public (Zhang & Dafoe, 2020). We find that AI/ML researchers place high levels of trust in international organizations and scientific organizations to shape the development and use of AI in the public interest; moderate trust in most Western tech companies; and low trust in national militaries, Chinese tech companies, and Facebook. While the respondents were overwhelmingly opposed to AI/ML researchers working on lethal autonomous weapons, they are less opposed to researchers working on other military applications of AI, particularly logistics algorithms. A strong majority of respondents think that AI safety research should be prioritized and that ML institutions should conduct pre-publication review to assess potential harms. Being closer to the technology itself, AI/ML re-searchers are well placed to highlight new risks and develop technical solutions, so this novel attempt to measure their attitudes has broad relevance. The findings should help to improve how researchers, private sector executives, and policymakers think about regulations, governance frameworks, guiding principles, and national and international governance strategies for AI.
△ Less
Submitted 5 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
Skilled and Mobile: Survey Evidence of AI Researchers' Immigration Preferences
Authors:
Remco Zwetsloot,
Baobao Zhang,
Noemi Dreksler,
Lauren Kahn,
Markus Anderljung,
Allan Dafoe,
Michael C. Horowitz
Abstract:
Countries, companies, and universities are increasingly competing over top-tier artificial intelligence (AI) researchers. Where are these researchers likely to immigrate and what affects their immigration decisions? We conducted a survey $(n = 524)$ of the immigration preferences and motivations of researchers that had papers accepted at one of two prestigious AI conferences: the Conference on Neu…
▽ More
Countries, companies, and universities are increasingly competing over top-tier artificial intelligence (AI) researchers. Where are these researchers likely to immigrate and what affects their immigration decisions? We conducted a survey $(n = 524)$ of the immigration preferences and motivations of researchers that had papers accepted at one of two prestigious AI conferences: the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) and the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). We find that the U.S. is the most popular destination for AI researchers, followed by the U.K., Canada, Switzerland, and France. A country's professional opportunities stood out as the most common factor that influences immigration decisions of AI researchers, followed by lifestyle and culture, the political climate, and personal relations. The destination country's immigration policies were important to just under half of the researchers surveyed, while around a quarter noted current immigration difficulties to be a deciding factor. Visa and immigration difficulties were perceived to be a particular impediment to conducting AI research in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. Implications of the findings for the future of AI talent policies and governance are discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 5 May, 2021; v1 submitted 15 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
A Stable Nuclear Future? The Impact of Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence
Authors:
Michael C. Horowitz,
Paul Scharre,
Alexander Velez-Green
Abstract:
The potential for advances in information-age technologies to undermine nuclear deterrence and influence the potential for nuclear escalation represents a critical question for international politics. One challenge is that uncertainty about the trajectory of technologies such as autonomous systems and artificial intelligence (AI) makes assessments difficult. This paper evaluates the relative impac…
▽ More
The potential for advances in information-age technologies to undermine nuclear deterrence and influence the potential for nuclear escalation represents a critical question for international politics. One challenge is that uncertainty about the trajectory of technologies such as autonomous systems and artificial intelligence (AI) makes assessments difficult. This paper evaluates the relative impact of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence in three areas: nuclear command and control, nuclear delivery platforms and vehicles, and conventional applications of autonomous systems with consequences for nuclear stability. We argue that countries may be more likely to use risky forms of autonomy when they fear that their second-strike capabilities will be undermined. Additionally, the potential deployment of uninhabited, autonomous nuclear delivery platforms and vehicles could raise the prospect for accidents and miscalculation. Conventional military applications of autonomous systems could simultaneously influence nuclear force postures and first-strike stability in previously unanticipated ways. In particular, the need to fight at machine speed and the cognitive risk introduced by automation bias could increase the risk of unintended escalation. Finally, used properly, there should be many applications of more autonomous systems in nuclear operations that can increase reliability, reduce the risk of accidents, and buy more time for decision-makers in a crisis.
△ Less
Submitted 13 December, 2019; v1 submitted 11 December, 2019;
originally announced December 2019.
