Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making
This addresses the gap in understanding AI's performance in group settings for researchers and practitioners, though it is incremental as it builds on existing human-AI collaboration research.
The paper tackled the problem of AI's limited role in group decision-making by conducting a study where AI participated equally with humans in ranking essays, finding that AI was valued but played a secondary role due to inability to follow discussion dynamics and make progressive contributions.
Existing research on human-AI collaborative decision-making focuses mainly on the interaction between AI and individual decision-makers. There is a limited understanding of how AI may perform in group decision-making. This paper presents a wizard-of-oz study in which two participants and an AI form a committee to rank three English essays. One novelty of our study is that we adopt a speculative design by endowing AI equal power to humans in group decision-making.We enable the AI to discuss and vote equally with other human members. We find that although the voice of AI is considered valuable, AI still plays a secondary role in the group because it cannot fully follow the dynamics of the discussion and make progressive contributions. Moreover, the divergent opinions of our participants regarding an "equal AI" shed light on the possible future of human-AI relations.