Learning to Prompt in the Classroom to Understand AI Limits: A pilot study

Artificial intelligence's progress holds great promise in assisting society in addressing pressing societal issues. In particular Large Language Models (LLM) and the derived chatbots, like ChatGPT, have highly improved the natural language processing capabilities of AI systems allowing them to process an unprecedented amount of unstructured data. The consequent hype has also backfired, raising negative sentiment even after novel AI methods' surprising contributions. One of the causes, but also an important issue per se, is the rising and misleading feeling of being able to access and process any form of knowledge to solve problems in any domain with no effort or previous expertise in AI or problem domain, disregarding current LLMs limits, such as hallucinations and reasoning limits. Acknowledging AI fallibility is crucial to address the impact of dogmatic overconfidence in possibly erroneous suggestions generated by LLMs. At the same time, it can reduce fear and other negative attitudes toward AI. AI literacy interventions are necessary that allow the public to understand such LLM limits and learn how to use them in a more effective manner, i.e. learning to "prompt". With this aim, a pilot educational intervention was performed in a high school with 30 students. It involved (i) presenting high-level concepts about intelligence, AI, and LLM, (ii) an initial naive practice with ChatGPT in a non-trivial task, and finally (iii) applying currently-accepted prompting strategies. Encouraging preliminary results have been collected such as students reporting a) high appreciation of the activity, b) improved quality of the interaction with the LLM during the educational activity, c) decreased negative sentiments toward AI, d) increased understanding of limitations and specifically We aim to study factors that impact AI acceptance and to refine and repeat this activity in more controlled settings.Comment: Submitted to AIXIA 2023 22nd International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence 6 - 9 Nov, 2023, Rome, Ital

How Do Analysts Understand and Verify AI-Assisted Data Analyses?

Data analysis is challenging as it requires synthesizing domain knowledge, statistical expertise, and programming skills. Assistants powered by large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, can assist analysts by translating natural language instructions into code. However, AI-assistant responses and analysis code can be misaligned with the analyst's intent or be seemingly correct but lead to incorrect conclusions Therefore, validating AI assistance is crucial and challenging. Here, we explore how analysts across a range of backgrounds and expertise understand and verify the correctness of AI-generated analyses. We develop a design probe that allows analysts to pursue diverse verification workflows using natural language explanations, code, visualizations, inspecting data tables, and performing common data operations. Through a qualitative user study (n=22) using this probe, we uncover common patterns of verification workflows influenced by analysts' programming, analysis, and AI backgrounds. Additionally, we highlight open challenges and opportunities for improving future AI analysis assistant experiences

Assistant, Parrot, or Colonizing Loudspeaker? ChatGPT Metaphors for Developing Critical AI Literacies

This study explores how discussing metaphors for AI can help build awareness of the frames that shape our understanding of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. Given the pressing need to teach “critical AI literacy”, discussion of metaphor provides an opportunity for inquiry and dialogue with space for nuance, playfulness, and critique. Using a collaborative autoethnographic methodology, we analyzed metaphors from a range of sources, and reflected on them individually according to seven questions, then met and discussed our interpretations. We then analyzed how our reflections contributed to the three kinds of literacies delineated in Selber’s multiliteracies framework: functional, critical and rhetorical. These allowed us to analyze questions of ethics, equity, and accessibility in relation to AI. We explored each metaphor along the dimension of whether or not it was promoting anthropomorphizing, and to what extent such metaphors imply that AI is sentient. Our findings highlight the role of metaphor reflection in fostering a nuanced understanding of AI, suggesting that our collaborative autoethnographic approach as well as the heuristic model of plotting AI metaphors on dimensions of anthropomorphism and multiliteracies, might be useful for educators and researchers in the pursuit of advancing critical AI literacy

To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments : how professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis

rtificial intelligence (AI) technologies promise to transform how professionals conduct knowledge work by augmenting their capabilities for making professional judgments. We know little, however, about how human-AI augmentation takes place in practice. Yet, gaining this understanding is particularly important when professionals use AI tools to form judgments on critical decisions. We conducted an in-depth field study in a major U.S. hospital where AI tools were used in three departments by diagnostic radiologists making breast cancer, lung cancer, and bone age determinations. The study illustrates the hindering effects of opacity that professionals experienced when using AI tools and explores how these professionals grappled with it in practice. In all three departments, this opacity resulted in professionals experiencing increased uncertainty because AI tool results often diverged from their initial judgment without providing underlying reasoning. Only in one department (of the three) did professionals consistently incorporate AI results into their final judgments, achieving what we call engaged augmentation. These professionals invested in AI interrogation practices—practices enacted by human experts to relate their own knowledge claims to AI knowledge claims. Professionals in the other two departments did not enact such practices and did not incorporate AI inputs into their final decisions, which we call unengaged “augmentation.” Our study unpacks the challenges involved in augmenting professional judgment with powerful, yet opaque, technologies and contributes to literature on AI adoption in knowledge work