Die Konstruktgrenze hybrider Intelligenz

Jede Zeile nennt eine Aussage zu dieser Abbildung, ihre Quelle und die Art ihrer Prüfung.

• A DEL19-C1 The definition, in the authors' words: "the most likely paradigm for the division of labor between humans and machines in the next decades is Hybrid" Intelligence, a concept that aims "at using the complementary strengths of human intelligence and AI, so that they can perform better than each of the two could separately"Dellermann, Ebel, Sollner & Leimeister. (2019)
• A DEL19-C2 The boundary against collective intelligence, verbatim: "collective intelligence typically refers to large groups of homogenous individuals", whereas "Hybrid Intelligence combines the complementary intelligence of heterogeneous agents"Dellermann, Ebel, Sollner & Leimeister. (2019)
• A DEL19-C3 Why the division of labour is the unit: "humans and computers have complementary capabilities that can be combined to augment each other", and "These complementary strengths of humans and machi"nes lead to two different forms of interplay, with trust, transparency, governance and incentives left as open design issuesDellermann, Ebel, Sollner & Leimeister. (2019)
• A JAR18-C1 Augmentation, not replacement, and the article says so: it "highlights the complementarity of humans and AI", mirroring "the idea of intelligence augmentation which states that AI systems should be designed with the intention of augmenting not replacing human contributions"Jarrahi. (2018)
• A JAR18-C2 The division is drawn on the kind of problem: "with a greater computational information processing capacity and an analytical approach AI can extend humans cognition when addressing complexity whereas humans can still offer a more holistic intuitive approach in dealing with uncertainty and equivocality"Jarrahi. (2018)
• A JAR18-C3 The context is named in the same sentence: decision processes "typically characterized by uncertainty complexity and equivocality", which is what makes the division of labour a task property rather than a ruleJarrahi. (2018)
• A SEE20-C1 A research agenda, and it counts itself: "this paper reports on an international initiative by 65 collaboration scientists to develop a research agenda for exploring the potential risks and benefits of machines as teammates", from "819 research questions"Seeber et al. (2020)
• A SEE20-C2 The structure is three areas and seventeen dualities: "three design areas machine artifact collaboration and institution and 17 dualities significant effects with the potential for benefit or harm"Seeber et al. (2020)
• A SEE20-C3 It is a question set, not a finding: the agenda "offers a structure and archetypal research questions to organize early thought and research in this new" areaSeeber et al. (2020)

Prüfgrade: A, gegen die gedruckte Seite der Primärquelle geprüft · B, Primärquelle, nur Textebene · C, belastbare Sekundärquelle · D, berichtet.

Diese Abbildung gehört zu einem Essay: Die Zahlen stehen hier, das Argument dort.