Abstract
This paper considers some of the issues around autonomous systems and the different types of risk involved in their implementation. These risks are both barriers to the implementation of a successful autonomous system and risks that are consequences of the use of such systems. The different levels of automation, and different approaches to categorizing these levels, as presented in a variety of frameworks, are summarized and discussed.
The paper presents an initial generic assessment structure, with the aim of providing a useful construct for the design and development of acceptable autonomous systems that are intended to replace elements of the human cognitive process, specifically in situations involving decision-making. It introduces the concept of the “logos chasm”: the gap between achievable autonomous systems and those which currently only exist in the realm of science fiction; and discusses possible reasons for its existence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Extensive fuzzy logic engines can solve the “end problem”, but only by virtue of the fuzzy logic’s definition assuming that the fuzzy logic will always resolve.
References
Endsley, M.: The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In: 31st Annual Meeting of Human Factors Society, pp. 1388–1392 (1987)
Sheridan, T.B.: Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)
Parasuraman, R.: Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics 43(7), 931–951 (2000)
Proud, R.W., Hart, J.J.: FLOAAT, A Tool for Determining Levels of Autonomy and Automation, Applied to Human-Rated Space Systems. Infotech@Aerospace, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) 2005-7061. AIAA, Arlington (2005)
Osinga, F.: Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands (2005)
Bannon, L.: Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions 18(4), 50–57 (2011)
Kun, A.L., Boll, S., Schmidt, A.: Shifting gears: user interfaces in the age of autonomous driving. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 15(1), 32–38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/mprv.2016.14
Cramer, H.S., Evers, V., Van Someren, M.W., Wielinga, B.J.: Awareness, training and trust in interaction with adaptive spam filters. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 909–912. ACM (2009)
McCarthy, J.: Bridging the gaps between HCI and social media. Interactions 18(2), 15–18 (2011)
Cresci, E.: Chatbot that overturned 160,000 parking fines now helping refugees claim asylum. The Guardian (2017). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/06/chatbot-donotpay-refugees-claim-asylum-legal-aid
Saunder, J., Hunt, P., Hollywood, J.S.: Predictions put into place: a quasi-experimental evaluation of Chicago’s predictive policing pilot. J. Exp. Criminol. 12(3), 347–371 (2016)
Caringi, A.: The FDA approved the world’s first autonomous insulin pump vocativ: health (2016). http://www.vocativ.com/363955/the-fda-approved-the-worlds-first-autonomous-insulin-pump/index.html
Platania, R., Shams, S., Yang, S., Zhang, J., Lee, K., Park, S-J.: Automated breast cancer diagnosis using deep learning and region of interest detection (BC-DROID). In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-BCB 2017), pp. 536–543. ACM, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3107411.3107484
J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. SAE International (2014)
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay Company, New York (1956)
Shieber, S.M.: Lessons from a restricted Turing Test. Commun. ACM 37(6), 70–78 (1994)
Shelburne, W.A.: Mythos and Logos in the Thought of Carl Jung: The theory of the Collective Unconscious in Scientific Perspective. State University of New York Press, Albany N. Y (1988)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Smith, K.T., Coventry, L., GreenSmith, R. (2019). An Initial Generic Assessment Framework for the Consideration of Risk in the Implementation of Autonomous Systems. In: Barricelli, B., et al. Human Work Interaction Design. Designing Engaging Automation. HWID 2018. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 544. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05296-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05297-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)