Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (5)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Object (3)
- Article (2)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Keywords
- Data literacy (2)
- AI-Systems (1)
- Alexa (1)
- Communication breakdown (1)
- Conversational user interfaces (1)
- Data visualization (1)
- Empirical Study (1)
- Explanatory dialogues (1)
- GDPR (1)
- Risk Perception (1)
AI systems pose unknown challenges for designers, policymakers, and users which aggravates the assessment of potential harms and outcomes. Although understanding risks is a requirement for building trust in technology, users are often excluded from legal assessments and explanations of AI hazards. To address this issue we conducted three focus groups with 18 participants in total and discussed the European proposal for a legal framework for AI. Based on this, we aim to build a (conceptual) model that guides policymakers, designers, and researchers in understanding users’ risk perception of AI systems. In this paper, we provide selected examples based on our preliminary results. Moreover, we argue for the benefits of such a perspective.
When dialogues with voice assistants (VAs) fall apart, users often become confused or even frustrated. To address these issues and related privacy concerns, Amazon recently introduced a feature allowing Alexa users to inquire about why it behaved in a certain way. But how do users perceive this new feature? In this paper, we present preliminary results from research conducted as part of a three-year project involving 33 German households. This project utilized interviews, fieldwork, and co-design workshops to identify common unexpected behaviors of VAs, as well as users’ needs and expectations for explanations. Our findings show that, contrary to its intended purpose, the new feature actually exacerbates user confusion and frustration instead of clarifying Alexa's behavior. We argue that such voice interactions should be characterized as explanatory dialogs that account for VA’s unexpected behavior by providing interpretable information and prompting users to take action to improve their current and future interactions.
Voice assistants (VA) collect data about users’ daily life including interactions with other connected devices, musical preferences, and unintended interactions. While users appreciate the convenience of VAs, their understanding and expectations of data collection by vendors are often vague and incomplete. By making the collected data explorable for consumers, our research-through-design approach seeks to unveil design resources for fostering data literacy and help users in making better informed decisions regarding their use of VAs. In this paper, we present the design of an interactive prototype that visualizes the conversations with VAs on a timeline and provides end users with basic means to engage with data, for instance allowing for filtering and categorization. Based on an evaluation with eleven households, our paper provides insights on how users reflect upon their data trails and presents design guidelines for supporting data literacy of consumers in the context of VAs.
AI (artificial intelligence) systems are increasingly being used in all aspects of our lives, from mundane routines to sensitive decision-making and even creative tasks. Therefore, an appropriate level of trust is required so that users know when to rely on the system and when to override it. While research has looked extensively at fostering trust in human-AI interactions, the lack of standardized procedures for human-AI trust makes it difficult to interpret results and compare across studies. As a result, the fundamental understanding of trust between humans and AI remains fragmented. This workshop invites researchers to revisit existing approaches and work toward a standardized framework for studying AI trust to answer the open questions: (1) What does trust mean between humans and AI in different contexts? (2) How can we create and convey the calibrated level of trust in interactions with AI? And (3) How can we develop a standardized framework to address new challenges?