Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Gabe Clapper

dblp:319/3460 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 56% Usability and user experience research · 44%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
responsible AI
0.212022
"Because AI is 100% right and safe": User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India · CHI 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 0.6interviews · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 "Because AI is 100% right and safe": User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India
abstract
Most prior work on human-AI interaction is set in communities that indicate skepticism towards AI, but we know less about contexts where AI is viewed as aspirational. We investigated the perceptions around AI systems by drawing upon 32 interviews and 459 survey respondents in India. Not only do Indian users accept AI decisions (79.2% respondents indicate acceptance), we find a case of AI authority—AI has a legitimized power to influence human actions, without requiring adequate evidence about the capabilities of the system. AI authority manifested into four user attitudes of vulnerability: faith, forgiveness, self-blame, and gratitude, pointing to higher tolerance for system misfires, and introducing potential for irreversible individual and societal harm. We urgently call for calibrating AI authority, reconsidering success metrics and responsible AI approaches and present methodological suggestions for research and deployments in India.
Shivani Kapania, Oliver Siy, Gabe Clapper, Nithya Sambasivan
CHI3