The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2401.16754 · v3 · pith:LE7EZT3K · submitted 2024-01-30 · cs.LG · cs.CY· econ.GN· q-fin.EC

AI Oversight and Human Mistakes: Evidence from Centre Court

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:LE7EZT3Krecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.CYecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords umpiresoversighterrorshumantypeballcallingcosts
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Powered by the increasing predictive capabilities of machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to overrule human mistakes in many settings. We provide the first field evidence that the use of AI oversight can impact human decision-making. We investigate one of the highest visibility settings where AI oversight has occurred: Hawk-Eye review of umpires in top tennis tournaments. We find that umpires lowered their overall mistake rate after the introduction of Hawk-Eye review, but also that umpires increased the rate at which they called balls in, producing a shift from making Type II errors (calling a ball out when in) to Type I errors (calling a ball in when out). We structurally estimate the psychological costs of being overruled by AI using a model of attention-constrained umpires, and our results suggest that because of these costs, umpires cared 37% more about Type II errors under AI oversight.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.