A starting point for discussion
The idea
People may decide in advance which patterns a system that searches data for patterns should look for, or let the system find patterns itself. They may also review its recommendations, carry them out, or leave the process to machines; some systems can be fully automated.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
This describes different possible roles for people and algorithms in data mining, including human review and full automation, without establishing whether review is meaningful.
Computer systems can shape what people do without taking over
The range of human involvement illustrates that algorithmic structuring need not entail complete automation or removal of human input.
People need to understand decisions before they can check them
Human review is one possible arrangement, but this statement alone does not show that reviewers can understand or challenge recommendations.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
People can decide what patterns the algorithm should look for, or let the algorithm find patterns without that instruction. People may also review the recommendations or carry them out.
Why it matters
People can take part at different stages. It matters whether they set the search, check the result, or only act on it.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the version formatted by the publisher. The passage distinguishes searches set by people from searches in which algorithms find patterns, and also describes different human roles in handling recommendations. Addresses: Human roles and search modes in algorithm-based decisions
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.