Towards a dynamic balance between humans and autom

Authors: Frank Flemisch Matthias Heesen Tobias Hesse Johann Kelsch Anna Schieben Johannes Beller

Publish Date: 2011/11/18

Volume: 14, Issue: 1, Pages: 3-18

PDF Link

Abstract

Progress enables the creation of more automated and intelligent machines with increasing abilities that open up new roles between humans and machines Only with a proper design for the resulting cooperative human–machine systems these advances will make our lives easier safer and enjoyable rather than harder and miserable Starting from examples of natural cooperative systems the paper investigates four cornerstone concepts for the design of such systems ability authority control and responsibility as well as their relationship to each other and to concepts like levels of automation and autonomy Consistency in the relations between these concepts is identified as an important quality for the system design A simple graphical tool is introduced that can help to visualize the cornerstone concepts and their relations in a single diagram Examples from the automotive domain where a cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles is under investigation demonstrate the application of the concepts and the tool Transitions in authority and control eg initiated by changes in the ability of human or machine are identified as key challenges A sufficient consistency of the mental models of human and machines not only in the system use but also in the design and evaluation can be a key enabler for a successful dynamic balance between humans and machinesIn general scientific and technological progress in close coupling with cultural achievements offers benefits that our ancestors could only dream of Properly applied machines can make our lives easier and improperly applied machines can make our lives really miserable Advances in hardware and software power hold promise for the creation of more and more intelligent and automated machinesHow do we design these complex human machine systems How do we balance between exploiting increasingly powerful technologies and retaining authority for the human How can we define clear safe efficient and enjoyable roles between humans and automated machines Which of the subsystems of future human–machine systems should have which ability which authority and which responsibility Can authority responsibility and control be traded dynamically between human and automation What other concepts besides authority and responsibility do we need to describe and shape a dynamic but stable balance between humans and automationApplied to movement vehicles a special kind of machines can help us to move further faster safer and more efficient These moving machines become more capable and autonomous as well At the beginning of the twentyfirst century vehicles like modern airplanes are already so sophisticated that they can operate autonomously for extended periods Prototype cars utilizing machine vision can under limited circumstances drive fully autonomously on public highways Dickmanns 2002 deserts eg Thrun et al 2006 or urban environments Montemerlo et al 2008 Wille et al 2010But advances in hardware and software do not automatically guarantee more intelligent vehicles More importantly intelligent or autonomous vehicles do not necessarily mean progress from which humans can really benefit In aviation a forerunner in technology through the twentieth century the development towards highly automated and intelligent aircraft led not only to a reduction of physical workload but also to problems like mode confusion humanoutoftheloop and many more Billings 1997 FAA 1996 Wiener 1989 This could create what Bainbridge calls the “ironies of automation” where “by taking away the easy parts of human tasks automation can make the difficult parts … more difficult” Bainbridge 1983 If more and more assistance and automation subsystems are possible for vehicles how do they cooperate with the human what abilities do they have what authority for the control of which aspects of the driving task and who bears which responsibilityIn an effort to foster the understanding of underlying principles and facilitate the answers to some of these open questions this paper starts with a brief look into natural cooperative systems and then investigates four cornerstone concepts for the design of human–machine systems ability authority control and responsibility An ontology of these cornerstone concepts is developed to provide a framework of consistent relations between the four as basis for further analysis and design The cornerstone concepts are linked to other important concepts like level of automation or autonomy Consistency between ability authority control and responsibility is identified as an important quality of a human–machine system Additionally a graphical tool is developed that can help to simplify the design and analysis of human machine systems by visualizing the cornerstone concepts and their relations in a single diagram The use of the devised framework and its visualization are demonstrated by the application to the human–machine interaction in existing prototypes of highly automated vehiclesIn general if machines become more and more intelligent what role should they play together with humans The interplay of intelligent entities is historically not new but as old as intelligence itself In nature and everyday life there are many examples for this flocks or herds of animals living and moving together or people interacting with each other and the environment Acting together does not necessarily mean acting towards common goals Competitive behaviour like hunting for the same food source or in the extreme killing each other is quite common in nature Competitive behaviour in the form of market competition might be a necessary part of human life and competitive behaviour in the form of war is clearly an undesirable part of human life In contrast to the competition cooperation as a means to successfully compete together against other groups or against challenging circumstances seems to be a historically newer but quite successful conceptApplied to movement cooperation is also a common concept in the nontechnical world Imagine a crowd of people moving along a street including a parent and a child walking handinhand Another example would be a driver and a horse both influencing the course of a horse cart or a pilot and a copilot alternatively controlling an airplane Differences and interplay of abilities authority control and responsibility shape out different characteristics of those cooperative movement systems

Keywords: