"It is there, and you need it, so why do you not use it?" Achieving better adoption of AI systems by domain experts, in the case study of natural science research

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous in domains such as medicine and natural science research. However, when AI systems are implemented in practice, domain experts often refuse them. Low acceptance hinders effective human-AI collaboration, even when it is essential for progress. In natural science research, scientists' ineffective use of AI-enabled systems can impede them from analysing their data and advancing their research. We conducted an ethnographically informed study of 10 in-depth interviews with AI practitioners and natural scientists at the organisation facing low adoption of algorithmic systems. Results were consolidated into recommendations for better AI adoption: i) actively supporting experts during the initial stages of system use, ii) communicating the capabilities of a system in a user-relevant way, and iii) following predefined collaboration rules. We discuss the broader implications of our findings and expand on how our proposed requirements could support practitioners and experts across domains.

Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Current & Future Trends

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas.

Experiential AI

Experiential AI is proposed as a new research agenda in which artists and scientists come together to dispel the mystery of algorithms and make their mechanisms vividly apparent. It addresses the challenge of finding novel ways of opening up the field of artificial intelligence to greater transparency and collaboration between human and machine. The hypothesis is that art can mediate between computer code and human comprehension to overcome the limitations of explanations in and for AI systems. Artists can make the boundaries of systems visible and offer novel ways to make the reasoning of AI transparent and decipherable. Beyond this, artistic practice can explore new configurations of humans and algorithms, mapping the terrain of inter-agencies between people and machines. This helps to viscerally understand the complex causal chains in environments with AI components, including questions about what data to collect or who to collect it about, how the algorithms are chosen, commissioned and configured or how humans are conditioned by their participation in algorithmic processes.