Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.10474 v1 pith:KTBFF76M submitted 2024-11-07 cs.HC

Correcting User Decisions Based on Incorrect Machine Learning Decisions

classification cs.HC
keywords machinealgorithmsaccuracyexperthumanusercommunicationdecisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

. It is typically assumed that for the successful use of machine learning algorithms, these algorithms should have a higher accuracy than a human expert. Moreover, if the average accuracy of ML algorithms is lower than that of a human expert, such algorithms should not be considered and are counter-productive. However, this is not always true. We provide strong statistical evidence that shows that even if a human expert is more accurate than a machine, an interaction with such a machine is beneficial when communication with the machine is non-public. The existence of a conflict between the user and ML model, and the private nature of user-AI communication will have the effect of making the user think about their decision and hence increase overall accuracy.

discussion (0)

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