Simon Ws Fischer

Many decision support systems (DSS) provide predictions, recommendations, and, increasingly, explanations. Supporting human-AI decision-making with context-specific questions, however, remains largely unexplored. Questions can stimulate reflection and critical thinking, thereby introducing productive friction in the decision-making process and potentially reducing overreliance on DSS. This paper presents a proof-of-concept for generating data-driven questions based on a DSS prediction and its corresponding explanation, i.e., feature contribution, using a local language model. We illustrate our method using a realistic example from the medical field. In informal discussions (n = 2), gathering views on the possible usefulness of questions in decision-making, the clinicians mentioned that the generated questions have potential to help them reconsider the prediction and consider alternative options. Our proof-of-concept informs the design of human-AI interactions aimed at promoting the cognitive engagement of decision-makers and mitigating overreliance on DSS by shifting the focus from explanations to questions.

Decision-makers run the risk of relying too much on machine recommendations, which is associated with lower cognitive engagement. Reflection has been shown to increase cognitive engagement and improve critical thinking and therefore decision-making. Questions are a means to stimulate reflection, but there is a research gap regarding the systematic creation and use of relevant questions for machine-assisted decision-making. We therefore present a taxonomy of questions aimed at promoting reflection and cognitive engagement in order to stimulate a deliberate decision-making process. Our taxonomy builds on the Socratic questioning method and a question bank for explainable AI. As a starting point, we focus on clinical decision-making. Brief discussions with two medical and three educational researchers provide feedback on the relevance and expected benefits of our taxonomy. Our work contributes to research on mitigating overreliance in human-AI interactions and aims to support effective human oversight as required by the European AI Act.

Large language models (LLMs) structure the linguistic landscape by reflecting certain beliefs and assumptions. In this paper, we address the risk of people unthinkingly adopting and being determined by the values or worldviews embedded in LLMs. We provide a Nietzschean critique of LLMs and, based on the concept of will to power, consider LLMs as will-to-power organisations. This allows us to conceptualise the interaction between self and LLMs as power struggles, which we understand as negotiation. Currently, the invisibility and incomprehensibility of LLMs make it difficult, if not impossible, to engage in such negotiations. This bears the danger that LLMs make reality increasingly homogeneous by recycling beliefs and creating feedback loops that ultimately freeze power struggles and thus consolidate the status quo. In view of this, LLMs constrain self-formation. Based on our critique, we provide some recommendations on how to develop interactions with LLMs that enable negotiations that allow for different ways of being

Human decisions are increasingly supported by decision support systems (DSS). Humans are required to remain “on the loop,” by monitoring and approving/rejecting machine recommendations. However, use of DSS can lead to overreliance on machines, reducing human oversight. This paper proposes “reflection machines” (RM) to increase meaningful human control. An RM provides a medical expert not with suggestions for a decision, but with questions that stimulate reflection about decisions. It can refer to data points or suggest counterarguments that are less compatible with the planned decision. RMs think against the proposed decision in order to increase human resistance against automation complacency. Building on preliminary research, this paper will (1) make a case for deriving a set of design requirements for RMs from EU regulations, (2) suggest a way how RMs could support decision-making, (3) describe the possibility of how a prototype of an RM could apply to the medical domain of chronic low back pain, and (4) highlight the importance of exploring an RM’s functionality and the experiences of users working with it.