BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

John T. Richards

John T. Richards contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Better Together? An Evaluation of AI-Supported Code Translation

Generative machine learning models have recently been applied to source code, for use cases including translating code between programming languages, creating documentation from code, and auto-completing methods. Yet, state-of-the-art models often produce code that is erroneous or incomplete. In a controlled study with 32 software engineers, we examined whether such imperfect outputs are helpful in the context of Java-to-Python code translation. When aided by the outputs of a code translation model, participants produced code with fewer errors than when working alone. We also examined how the quality and quantity of AI translations affected the work process and quality of outcomes, and observed that providing multiple translations had a larger impact on the translation process than varying the quality of provided translations. Our results tell a complex, nuanced story about the benefits of generative code models and the challenges software engineers face when working with their outputs. Our work motivates the need for intelligent user interfaces that help software engineers effectively work with generative code models in order to understand and evaluate their outputs and achieve superior outcomes to working alone.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Humble Machines: Attending to the Underappreciated Costs of Misplaced Distrust

It is curious that AI increasingly outperforms human decision makers, yet much of the public distrusts AI to make decisions affecting their lives. In this paper we explore a novel theory that may explain one reason for this. We propose that public distrust of AI is a moral consequence of designing systems that prioritize reduction of costs of false positives over less tangible costs of false negatives. We show that such systems, which we characterize as 'distrustful', are more likely to miscategorize trustworthy individuals, with cascading consequences to both those individuals and the overall human-AI trust relationship. Ultimately, we argue that public distrust of AI stems from well-founded concern about the potential of being miscategorized. We propose that restoring public trust in AI will require that systems are designed to embody a stance of 'humble trust', whereby the moral costs of the misplaced distrust associated with false negatives is weighted appropriately during development and use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Many Facets of Trust in AI: Formalizing the Relation Between Trust and Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Efforts to promote fairness, accountability, and transparency are assumed to be critical in fostering Trust in AI (TAI), but extant literature is frustratingly vague regarding this 'trust'. The lack of exposition on trust itself suggests that trust is commonly understood, uncomplicated, or even uninteresting. But is it? Our analysis of TAI publications reveals numerous orientations which differ in terms of who is doing the trusting (agent), in what (object), on the basis of what (basis), in order to what (objective), and why (impact). We develop an ontology that encapsulates these key axes of difference to a) illuminate seeming inconsistencies across the literature and b) more effectively manage a dizzying number of TAI considerations. We then reflect this ontology through a corpus of publications exploring fairness, accountability, and transparency to examine the variety of ways that TAI is considered within and between these approaches to promoting trust.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AI

Trusted AI literature to date has focused on the trust needs of users who knowingly interact with discrete AIs. Conspicuously absent from the literature is a rigorous treatment of public trust in AI. We argue that public distrust of AI originates from the under-development of a regulatory ecosystem that would guarantee the trustworthiness of the AIs that pervade society. Drawing from structuration theory and literature on institutional trust, we offer a model of public trust in AI that differs starkly from models driving Trusted AI efforts. This model provides a theoretical scaffolding for Trusted AI research which underscores the need to develop nothing less than a comprehensive and visibly functioning regulatory ecosystem. We elaborate the pivotal role of externally auditable AI documentation within this model and the work to be done to ensure it is effective, and outline a number of actions that would promote public trust in AI. We discuss how existing efforts to develop AI documentation within organizations -- both to inform potential adopters of AI components and support the deliberations of risk and ethics review boards -- is necessary but insufficient assurance of the trustworthiness of AI. We argue that being accountable to the public in ways that earn their trust, through elaborating rules for AI and developing resources for enforcing these rules, is what will ultimately make AI trustworthy enough to be woven into the fabric of our society.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access