Where is the human? Bridging the gap between AI and HCI

In recent years, AI systems have become both more powerful and increasingly promising for integration in a variety of application areas. Attention has also been called to the social challenges these systems bring, particularly in how they might fail or even actively disadvantage marginalised social groups, or how their opacity might make them difficult to oversee and challenge. In the context of these and other challenges, the roles of humans working in tandem with these systems will be important, yet the HCI community has been only a quiet voice in these debates to date. This workshop aims to catalyse and crystallise an agenda around HCI's engagement with AI systems. Topics of interest include explainable and explorable AI; documentation and review; integrating artificial and human intelligence; collaborative decision making; AI/ML in HCI Design; diverse human roles and relationships in AI systems; and critical views of AI

SUM’20: State-based user modelling

Capturing and effectively utilising user states and goals is becoming a timely challenge for successfully leveraging intelligent and usercentric systems in differentweb search and data mining applications. Examples of such systems are conversational agents, intelligent assistants, educational and contextual information retrieval systems, recommender/match-making systems and advertising systems, all of which rely on identifying the user state in order to provide the most relevant information and assist users in achieving their goals. There has been, however, limited work towards building such state-aware intelligent learning mechanisms. Hence, devising information systems that can keep track of the user's state has been listed as one of the grand challenges to be tackled in the next few years [1]. It is thus timely to organize a workshop that re-visits the problem of designing and evaluating state-aware and user-centric systems, ensuring that the community (spanning academic and industrial backgrounds) works together to tackle these challenges

Perception of Bias in ChatGPT: Analysis of Social Media Data

In this study, we aim to analyze the public perception of Twitter users with respect to the use of ChatGPT and the potential bias in its responses. Sentiment and emotion analysis were also analyzed. Analysis of 5,962 English tweets showed that Twitter users were concerned about six main types of biases, namely: political, ideological, data & algorithmic, gender, racial, cultural, and confirmation biases. Sentiment analysis showed that most of the users reflected a neutral sentiment, followed by negative and positive sentiment. Emotion analysis mainly reflected anger, disgust, and sadness with respect to bias concerns with ChatGPT use

Local and Global Explanations of Agent Behavior: Integrating Strategy Summaries with Saliency Maps

With advances in reinforcement learning (RL), agents are now being developed in high-stakes application domains such as healthcare and transportation. Explaining the behavior of these agents is challenging, as the environments in which they act have large state spaces, and their decision-making can be affected by delayed rewards, making it difficult to analyze their behavior. To address this problem, several approaches have been developed. Some approaches attempt to convey the $\textit{global}$ behavior of the agent, describing the actions it takes in different states. Other approaches devised $\textit{local}$ explanations which provide information regarding the agent's decision-making in a particular state. In this paper, we combine global and local explanation methods, and evaluate their joint and separate contributions, providing (to the best of our knowledge) the first user study of combined local and global explanations for RL agents. Specifically, we augment strategy summaries that extract important trajectories of states from simulations of the agent with saliency maps which show what information the agent attends to. Our results show that the choice of what states to include in the summary (global information) strongly affects people's understanding of agents: participants shown summaries that included important states significantly outperformed participants who were presented with agent behavior in a randomly set of chosen world-states. We find mixed results with respect to augmenting demonstrations with saliency maps (local information), as the addition of saliency maps did not significantly improve performance in most cases. However, we do find some evidence that saliency maps can help users better understand what information the agent relies on in its decision making, suggesting avenues for future work that can further improve explanations of RL agents