{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Microsoft Research","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research","author_name":"Lev Tankelevitch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/people\/t-levt\/","title":"Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interactions - Microsoft Research","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"szMzMZgvUb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/publication\/ironies-of-generative-ai-understanding-and-mitigating-productivity-loss-in-human-ai-interactions\/\">Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interactions<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/publication\/ironies-of-generative-ai-understanding-and-mitigating-productivity-loss-in-human-ai-interactions\/embed\/#?secret=szMzMZgvUb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interactions&#8221; &#8212; Microsoft Research\" data-secret=\"szMzMZgvUb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Generative AI (GenAI) systems offer opportunities to increase user productivity in many tasks, such as programming and writing. However, while they boost productivity in some studies, many others show that users are working ineffectively with GenAI systems and losing productivity. Despite the apparent novelty of these usability challenges, these 'ironies of automation' have been observed for over three decades in Human Factors research on the introduction of automation in domains such as aviation, automated driving, and intelligence. We draw on this extensive research alongside recent GenAI user studies to outline four key reasons for productivity loss with GenAI systems: a shift in users' roles from production to evaluation, unhelpful restructuring of workflows, interruptions, and a tendency for automation to make easy tasks easier and hard tasks harder. We then suggest how Human Factors research can also inform GenAI system design to mitigate productivity loss by using approaches such as continuous feedback, system personalization, ecological interface design, task stabilization, and clear task allocation. Thus, we ground developments in GenAI system usability in decades of Human Factors research, ensuring that the design of human-AI interactions in this rapidly moving field learns from history instead of repeating it."}