The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive Challenges in Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation
Open accessAbstract
A consensus is beginning to emerge that the next phase of artificial intelligence (AI) induction in business organizations will require humans to work with AI in a variety of work arrangements. This article explores the issues related to human capabilities to work with AI. A key to working in many work arrangements is the ability to delegate work to entities that can do them most efficiently. Modern AI can do a remarkable job of efficient delegation to humans because it knows what it knows well and what it does not. Humans, on the other hand, are poor judges of their metaknowledge and are not good at delegating knowledge work to AI—this might prove to be a big stumbling block to create work environments where humans and AI work together. Humans have often created machines to serve them. The sentiment is perhaps exemplified by Oscar Wilde’s statement that “civilization requires slaves…. Human slavery is wrong, insecure and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.” However, the time has come when humans might switch roles with machines. Our study highlights capabilities that humans need to effectively work with AI and still be in control rather than just being directed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, A.-R., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V., Nguyen, P., Sainath, T., et al. (2012) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2012.2205597 · Cited by 10,260
The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355303322552801 · Cited by 6,205
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 · Cited by 1,230
What can machine learning do? Workforce implications
Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap8062 · Cited by 1,131
What Can Machines Learn and What Does It Mean for Occupations and the Economy?
Brynjolfsson, E., Mitchell, T., & Rock, D. (2018) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.20181019 · Cited by 695
Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/15882 · Cited by 512
A Data-Driven Analysis of Workers' Earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Hara, K., Adams, A., Milland, K., Savage, S., Callison-Burch, C., & Bigham, J. P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174023 · Cited by 497
Viewpoint: Human-in-the-loop Artificial Intelligence
Zanzotto, F. M. (2019) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.11345 · Cited by 380
Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01588-4 · Cited by 105
Cited by
AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies
Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225 · Cited by 368
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100062 · Cited by 243
Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise
Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.03014 · Cited by 204
Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language Models
Dhillon, P. S., Molaei, S., Li, J., Golub, M., Zheng, S., & Robert, L. P. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642134 · Cited by 111
AI Literacy - Towards Measuring Human Competency in Artificial Intelligence
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.021 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 678-696
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W4200195738
- Cited by
- 478
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 39.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
