In this work, we investigate how people use text-to-image models to generate desired target images. To study this interaction, we created ArtWhisperer, an online game where users are given a target image and are tasked with iteratively finding a prompt that creates a similar-looking image as the target. Through this game, we recorded over 50,000 human-AI interactions; each interaction corresponds to one text prompt created by a user and the corresponding generated image. The majority of these are repeated interactions where a user iterates to find the best prompt for their target image, making this a unique sequential dataset for studying human-AI collaborations. In an initial analysis of this dataset, we identify several characteristics of prompt interactions and user strategies. People submit diverse prompts and are able to discover a variety of text descriptions that generate similar images. Interestingly, prompt diversity does not decrease as users find better prompts. We further propose a new metric to quantify AI model *steerability* using our dataset. We define steerability as the expected number of interactions required to adequately complete a task. We estimate this value by fitting a Markov chain for each target task and calculating the expected time to reach an adequate score. We quantify and compare AI steerability across different types of target images and two different models, finding that images of cities and nature are more steerable than artistic and fantasy images. We also evaluate popular vision-language models to assess their image understanding and ability to incorporate feedback. These findings provide insights into human-AI interaction behavior, present a concrete method of assessing AI steerability, and demonstrate the general utility of the ArtWhisperer dataset.

In decision support applications of AI, the AI algorithm's output is framed as a suggestion to a human user. The user may ignore this advice or take it into consideration to modify their decision. With the increasing prevalence of such human-AI interactions, it is important to understand how users react to AI advice. In this paper, we recruited over 1100 crowdworkers to characterize how humans use AI suggestions relative to equivalent suggestions from a group of peer humans across several experimental settings. We find that participants' beliefs about how human versus AI performance on a given task affects whether they heed the advice. When participants do heed the advice, they use it similarly for human and AI suggestions. Based on these results, we propose a two-stage, "activation-integration" model for human behavior and use it to characterize the factors that affect human-AI interactions.

In many practical applications of AI, an AI model is used as a decision aid for human users. The AI provides advice that a human (sometimes) incorporates into their decision-making process. The AI advice is often presented with some measure of "confidence" that the human can use to calibrate how much they depend on or trust the advice. In this paper, we present an initial exploration that suggests showing AI models as more confident than they actually are, even when the original AI is well-calibrated, can improve human-AI performance (measured as the accuracy and confidence of the human's final prediction after seeing the AI advice). We first train a model to predict human incorporation of AI advice using data from thousands of human-AI interactions. This enables us to explicitly estimate how to transform the AI's prediction confidence, making the AI uncalibrated, in order to improve the final human prediction. We empirically validate our results across four different tasks---dealing with images, text and tabular data---involving hundreds of human participants. We further support our findings with simulation analysis. Our findings suggest the importance of jointly optimizing the human-AI system as opposed to the standard paradigm of optimizing the AI model alone.

Transfer learning aims to leverage models pre-trained on source data to efficiently adapt to target setting, where only limited data are available for model fine-tuning. Recent works empirically demonstrate that adversarial training in the source data can improve the ability of models to transfer to new domains. However, why this happens is not known. In this paper, we provide a theoretical model to rigorously analyze how adversarial training helps transfer learning. We show that adversarial training in the source data generates provably better representations, so fine-tuning on top of this representation leads to a more accurate predictor of the target data. We further demonstrate both theoretically and empirically that semi-supervised learning in the source data can also improve transfer learning by similarly improving the representation. Moreover, performing adversarial training on top of semi-supervised learning can further improve transferability, suggesting that the two approaches have complementary benefits on representations. We support our theories with experiments on popular data sets and deep learning architectures.

Datacenter disaggregation provides numerous benefits to both the datacenter operator and the application designer. However switching from the server-centric model to a disaggregated model requires developing new programming abstractions that can achieve high performance while benefiting from the greater elasticity. To explore the limits of datacenter disaggregation, we study an application area that near-maximally benefits from current server-centric datacenters: dense linear algebra. We build NumPyWren, a system for linear algebra built on a disaggregated serverless programming model, and LAmbdaPACK, a companion domain-specific language designed for serverless execution of highly parallel linear algebra algorithms. We show that, for a number of linear algebra algorithms such as matrix multiply, singular value decomposition, Cholesky decomposition, and QR decomposition, NumPyWren's performance (completion time) is within a factor of 2 of optimized server-centric MPI implementations, and has up to 15% greater compute efficiency (total CPU-hours), while providing fault tolerance.

A continuing mystery in understanding the empirical success of deep neural networks has been in their ability to achieve zero training error and yet generalize well, even when the training data is noisy and there are more parameters than data points. We investigate this "overparametrization" phenomena in the classical underdetermined linear regression problem, where all solutions that minimize training error interpolate the data, including noise. We give a bound on how well such interpolative solutions can generalize to fresh test data, and show that this bound generically decays to zero with the number of extra features, thus characterizing an explicit benefit of overparameterization. For appropriately sparse linear models, we provide a hybrid interpolating scheme (combining classical sparse recovery schemes with harmless noise-fitting) to achieve generalization error close to the bound on interpolative solutions.