research-article

My Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves Interaction

Authors:

Wendy JuAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW1

Article No.: 27, Pages 1 - 24

https://doi.org/10.1145/3449101

Published: 22 April 2021 Publication History

Abstract

One key technique people use in conversation and collaboration is conversational repair. Self-repair is the recognition and attempted correction of one's own mistakes. We investigate how the self-repair of errors by intelligent voice assistants affects user interaction. In a controlled human-participant study (N =101), participants asked Amazon Alexa to perform four tasks, and we manipulated whether Alexa would "make a mistake'' understanding the participant (for example, playing heavy metal in response to a request for relaxing music) and whether Alexa would perform a correction (for example, stating, "You don't seem pleased. Did I get that wrong?'') We measured the impact of self-repair on the participant's perception of the interaction in four conditions: correction (mistakes made and repair performed), undercorrection (mistakes made, no repair performed), overcorrection (no mistakes made, but repair performed), and control (no mistakes made, and no repair performed). Subsequently, we conducted free-response interviews with each participant about their interactions. This study finds that self-repair greatly improves people's assessment of an intelligent voice assistant if a mistake has been made, but can degrade assessment if no correction is needed. However, we find that the positive impact of self-repair in the wake of an error outweighs the negative impact of overcorrection. In addition, participants who recently experienced an error saw increased value in self-repair as a feature, regardless of whether they experienced a repair themselves.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (v5cscw027vf.mp4)

Supplemental video

Download
319.07 MB

References

[1]

Amazon.com. 2015. Amazon Echo. Smart Speaker.

[2]

Sean Andrist, Xiang Zhi Tan, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu. 2014. Conversational gaze aversion for humanlike robots. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 25--32.

Digital Library

[3]

Anki. 2018. Vector. Robot toy.

[4]

Apple Inc. 2017. Homepod. Smart Speaker.

[5]

Zahra Ashktorab, Mohit Jain, Q Vera Liao, and Justin D Weisz. 2019. Resilient chatbots: repair strategy preferences for conversational breakdowns. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--12.

Digital Library

[6]

Timothy Bickmore, Ha Trinh, Reza Asadi, and Stefan Olafsson. 2018. Safety first: Conversational agents for health care. In Studies in Conversational UX Design. Springer, 33--57.

[7]

Dan Bohus. 2007. Error awareness and recovery in conversational spoken language interfaces. Technical Report. CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.

[8]

Konstantinos Bousmalis, Marc Mehu, and Maja Pantic. 2013. Towards the automatic detection of spontaneous agreement and disagreement based on non-verbal behaviour: A Survey of related cues, databases, and tools. Image and vision computing, Vol. 31, 2 (2 2013), 203--221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2012.07.003 eemcs-eprint-24491.

Digital Library

[9]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.

[10]

Cynthia Breazeal and Brian Scassellati. 1999. How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1999. IROS'99. Proceedings. 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, Vol. 2. IEEE, 858--863.

[11]

Susan E Brennan et almbox. 2005. How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (2005), 95--129.

[12]

Ivan Bretan, Anna-Lena Ereback, Catriona MacDermid, and Annika Waern. 1995. Simulation-based dialogue design for speech-controlled telephone services. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 145--146.

Digital Library

[13]

Janet E Cahn and Susan E Brennan. 1999. A psychological model of grounding and repair in dialog. In Proc. Fall 1999 AAAI Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems.

[14]

Heloisa Candello and Claudio Pinhanez. 2018. Recovering from Dialogue Failures Using Multiple Agents in Wealth Management Advice. In Studies in Conversational UX Design. Springer, 139--157.

[15]

Justine Cassell, Joseph Sullivan, Elizabeth Churchill, and Scott Prevost. 2000. Embodied conversational agents. MIT press.

Digital Library

[16]

Nicole Chovil. 1991. Social determinants of facial displays. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 15, 3 (1991), 141--154.

[17]

Herbert H Clark and Edward F Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive science, Vol. 13, 2 (1989), 259--294.

[18]

Kevin Corti and Alex Gillespie. 2016. Co-constructing intersubjectivity with artificial conversational agents: people are more likely to initiate repairs of misunderstandings with agents represented as human. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 58 (2016), 431--442.

Digital Library

[19]

Ellen Douglas-Cowie, Roddy Cowie, and Marc Schröder. 2000. A new emotion database: considerations, sources and scope. In ISCA tutorial and research workshop (ITRW) on speech and emotion. ISCA.

[20]

The Economist. 2017. Terry Winograd: Where Humans still Beat Computers. The Economist (Jan 2017).

[21]

Paul Ekman. 1976. Pictures of facial affect. Consulting Psychologists Press (1976).

[22]

Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen. 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. semiotica, Vol. 1, 1 (1969), 49--98.

[23]

Yuan Fan and Qiuchen Wang. 2013. Robot. US Patent App. 29/431,926.

[24]

Shinya Fujie, Yasuhi Ejiri, Kei Nakajima, Yosuke Matsusaka, and Tetsunori Kobayashi. 2004. A conversation robot using head gesture recognition as para-linguistic information. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2004. ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 159--164.

[25]

Petra Gieselmann. 2006. Comparing error-handling strategies in human-human and human-robot dialogues. In Proc. 8th Conf. Nat. Language Process.(KONVENS). Konstanz, Germany. 24--31.

[26]

Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish. 2010. Intersubjectivity: Towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, Vol. 40, 1 (2010), 19--46.

[27]

Google. 2016. Google Home. Smart Speaker.

[28]

Samuel D Gosling, Peter J Rentfrow, and William B Swann Jr. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, Vol. 37, 6 (2003), 504--528.

[29]

Chien-Ming Huang, Sean Andrist, Allison Sauppé, and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. Using gaze patterns to predict task intent in collaboration. Frontiers in psychology, Vol. 6 (2015), 1049.

[30]

Chien-Ming Huang and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. The repertoire of robot behavior: Enabling robots to achieve interaction goals through social behavior. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, Vol. 2, 2 (2013), 80--102.

Digital Library

[31]

Keith Johnstone. 2012. Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. Routledge.

[32]

Malte F Jung, Jin Joo Lee, Nick DePalma, Sigurdur O Adalgeirsson, Pamela J Hinds, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2013. Engaging robots: easing complex human-robot teamwork using backchanneling. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 1555--1566.

Digital Library

[33]

Gina-Anne Levow. 1998. Characterizing and recognizing spoken corrections in human-computer dialogue. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 736--742.

[34]

Jamy Li, Andrea Cuadra, Brian Mok, Byron Reeves, Jofish Kaye, and Wendy Ju. 2019. Communicating dominance in a nonanthropomorphic robot using locomotion. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), Vol. 8, 1 (2019), 1--14.

Digital Library

[35]

Diane J Litman, Julia B Hirschberg, and Marc Swerts. 2000. Predicting automatic speech recognition performance using prosodic cues. In Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference. Association for Computational Linguistics, 218--225.

Digital Library

[36]

Nurul Lubis, Sakriani Sakti, Koichiro Yoshino, and Satoshi Nakamura. 2018. Emotional Triggers and Responses in Spontaneous Affective Interaction: Recognition, Prediction, and Analysis. Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33, 1 (2018), DSH-D_1-10. https://doi.org/10.1527/tjsai.DSH-D

[37]

Patrick Lucey, Jeffrey F Cohn, Takeo Kanade, Jason Saragih, Zara Ambadar, and Iain Matthews. 2010. The extended cohn-kanade dataset (ck): A complete dataset for action unit and emotion-specified expression. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on. IEEE, 94--101.

[38]

Daniel McDuff, Rana Kaliouby, Thibaud Senechal, May Amr, Jeffrey Cohn, and Rosalind Picard. 2013. Affectiva-mit facial expression dataset (am-fed): Naturalistic and spontaneous facial expressions collected. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE, 881--888.

Digital Library

[39]

Michael F McTear. 2004. Spoken dialogue technology: toward the conversational user interface. Springer Science & Business Media.

[40]

Matthew B Miles, A Michael Huberman, and Johnny Salda na. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd.

[41]

AS Miner, A Milstein, and S Schueller. 2016. Smartphone-based conversational agents and responses to questions about mental health, interpersonal violence, and physical health (vol 176, pg 619, 2016). JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, Vol. 176, 5 (2016), 719--719.

[42]

Nicole Mirnig, Gerald Stollnberger, Markus Miksch, Susanne Stadler, Manuel Giuliani, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. To err is robot: How humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol. 4 (2017), 21.

[43]

Robert J Moore and Raphael Arar. 2018. Conversational UX design: an introduction. In Studies in conversational UX design. Springer, 1--16.

[44]

Bilge Mutlu, Jodi Forlizzi, and Jessica Hodgins. 2006. A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. In Humanoid robots, 2006 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on. Citeseer, 518--523.

[45]

Bilge Mutlu, Takayuki Kanda, Jodi Forlizzi, Jessica Hodgins, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2012. Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), Vol. 1, 2 (2012), 12.

Digital Library

[46]

Bilge Mutlu, Toshiyuki Shiwa, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, and Norihiro Hagita. 2009. Footing in human-robot conversations: how robots might shape participant roles using gaze cues. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. ACM, 61--68.

Digital Library

[47]

Katashi Nagao and Akikazu Takeuchi. 1994. Speech dialogue with facial displays: Multimodal human-computer conversation. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 102--109.

Digital Library

[48]

Clifford Nass, Janathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computer are social actors. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (1994), 72--78. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260288

Digital Library

[49]

Jakob Nielsen. 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 373--380.

Digital Library

[50]

Sharon Oviatt, Margaret MacEachern, and Gina-Anne Levow. 1998. Predicting hyperarticulate speech during human-computer error resolution. Speech Communication, Vol. 24, 2 (1998), 87--110.

Digital Library

[51]

Ana Paiva, Iolanda Leite, Hana Boukricha, and Ipke Wachsmuth. 2017. Empathy in Virtual Agents and Robots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, Vol. 7, 3 (2017), 1--40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2912150

Digital Library

[52]

Tomislav Pejsa, Sean Andrist, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu. 2015. Gaze and attention management for embodied conversational agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), Vol. 5, 1 (2015), 3.

Digital Library

[53]

Marco Ragni, Andrey Rudenko, Barbara Kuhnert, and Kai O Arras. 2016. Errare humanum est: Erroneous robots in human-robot interaction. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 501--506.

Digital Library

[54]

Pramila Rani, Changchun Liu, Nilanjan Sarkar, and Eric Vanman. 2006. An empirical study of machine learning techniques for affect recognition in human--robot interaction. Pattern Analysis and Applications, Vol. 9, 1 (2006), 58--69.

Digital Library

[55]

Frank Rudzicz, Rosalie Wang, Momotaz Begum, and Alex Mihailidis. 2015. Speech interaction with personal assistive robots supporting aging at home for individuals with Alzheimer's disease. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), Vol. 7, 2 (2015), 6.

[56]

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. A simplest systematics for the publisher of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the publisher of conversational interaction. Elsevier, 7--55.

[57]

A. F. Salazar-Gomez, J. DelPreto, S. Gil, F. H. Guenther, and D. Rus. 2017. Correcting robot mistakes in real time using EEG signals. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 6570--6577. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989777

Digital Library

[58]

Maha Salem, Friederike Eyssel, Katharina Rohlfing, Stefan Kopp, and Frank Joublin. 2013. To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likability. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 5, 3 (2013), 313--323.

[59]

Emanuel A Schegloff. 1997 a. Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse processes, Vol. 23, 3 (1997), 499--545.

[60]

Emanuel A Schegloff. 1997 b. Third turn repair. AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE SERIES 4 (1997), 31--40.

[61]

Emanuel A Schegloff. 2000. When'others' initiate repair. Applied linguistics, Vol. 21, 2 (2000), 205--243.

[62]

Emanuel A Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the publisher of repair in conversation. Language, Vol. 53, 2 (1977), 361--382.

[63]

Candace L Sidner, Christopher Lee, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Clifton Forlines. 2006. The effect of head-nod recognition in human-robot conversation. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 290--296.

Digital Library

[64]

Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Margaret Traeger, Malte Jung, and Brian Scassellati. 2018. The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot's vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 178--186.

Digital Library

[65]

Bernhard Suhm, Josh Bers, Dan McCarthy, Barbara Freeman, David Getty, Katherine Godfrey, and Pat Peterson. 2002. A comparative study of speech in the call center: natural language call routing vs. touch-tone menus. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 283--290.

Digital Library

[66]

Margaret L Traeger, Sarah Strohkorb Sebo, Malte Jung, Brian Scassellati, and Nicholas A Christakis. 2020. Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human--robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 117, 12 (2020), 6370--6375.

[67]

Mark West, Rebecca Kraut, and Han Ei Chew. 2019. I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education. (2019).

[68]

Alex C Williams, Harmanpreet Kaur, Gloria Mark, Anne Loomis Thompson, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Jaime Teevan. 2018. Supporting workplace detachment and reattachment with conversational intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--13.

Digital Library

[69]

Ziang Xiao, Michelle X Zhou, Q Vera Liao, Gloria Mark, Changyan Chi, Wenxi Chen, and Huahai Yang. 2020. Tell Me About Yourself: Using an AI-Powered Chatbot to Conduct Conversational Surveys with Open-ended Questions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Vol. 27, 3 (2020), 1--37.

Digital Library

[70]

Bo Zhang, Qingsheng Cai, Jianfeng Mao, Eric Chang, and Baining Guo. 2001. Spoken dialogue management as planning and acting under uncertainty. In Seventh European conference on speech communication and technology.

Cited By

Choi MGuo SKoilias AVolonte MKao DMousas C(2024)Exploring the Effects of Self-Correction Behavior of an Intelligent Virtual Character during a Jigsaw Puzzle Co-Solving TaskACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/368800614:3(1-33)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3688006
Stiber MBohus DAndrist S(2024)"Uh, This One?": Leveraging Behavioral Signals for Detecting Confusion during Physical TasksProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3678957.3685727(194-203)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3678957.3685727
Moore RAn SMarrese O(2024)Understanding is a Two-Way Street: User-Initiated Repair on Agent Responses and Hearing in Conversational InterfacesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410268:CSCW1(1-26)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641026
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

My Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves Interaction
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence
      1. Intelligent agents
2. Human-centered computing

Recommendations

Facilitating Mindful Eating with a Voice Assistant
CUI '23: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

In our busy lives, meals are being squeezed into shorter times, or fit into multitasking routines of watching videos and scrolling through social media. This can lead to eating quickly without considering the food choices and overeating. Mindful eating ...
Platform for Studying Self-Repairing Auto-Corrections in Mobile Text Entry based on Brain Activity, Gaze, and Context
CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Auto-correction is a standard feature of mobile text entry. While the performance of state-of-the-art auto-correct methods is usually relatively high, any errors that occur are cumbersome to repair, interrupt the flow of text entry, and challenge the ...
Older Adults and Voice Interaction: A Pilot Study with Google Home
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

In this paper we present the results of an exploratory study examining the potential of voice assistants (VA) for some groups of older adults in the context of Smart Home Technology (SHT). To research the aspect of older adults' interaction with voice ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW1

CSCW

April 2021

5016 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3460939

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 April 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Mozilla Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

25
Total Citations
View Citations
898
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)236
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Choi MGuo SKoilias AVolonte MKao DMousas C(2024)Exploring the Effects of Self-Correction Behavior of an Intelligent Virtual Character during a Jigsaw Puzzle Co-Solving TaskACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/368800614:3(1-33)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3688006
Stiber MBohus DAndrist S(2024)"Uh, This One?": Leveraging Behavioral Signals for Detecting Confusion during Physical TasksProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3678957.3685727(194-203)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3678957.3685727
Moore RAn SMarrese O(2024)Understanding is a Two-Way Street: User-Initiated Repair on Agent Responses and Hearing in Conversational InterfacesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410268:CSCW1(1-26)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641026
Alghamdi EHalvey MNicol E(2024)System and User Strategies to Repair Conversational Breakdowns of Spoken Dialogue Systems: A Scoping ReviewProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665558(1-13)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665558
Alizadeh FTolmie PLee MWintersberger PPins DStevens G(2024)Voice Assistants' Accountability through Explanatory DialoguesProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665557(1-12)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665557
Rey BSakamoto YSin JIrani P(2024)Understanding User Preferences of Voice Assistant Answer Structures for Personal Health Data QueriesProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665552(1-15)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665552
Gao JGebreegziabher SChoo KLi TPerrault SMalone T(2024)A Taxonomy for Human-LLM Interaction Modes: An Initial ExplorationExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650786(1-11)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650786
Wenzel KKaufman G(2024)Designing for Harm Reduction: Communication Repair for Multicultural Users' Voice InteractionsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642900(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642900
Wester JSchrills TPohl Hvan Berkel N(2024)“As an AI language model, I cannot”: Investigating LLM Denials of User RequestsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642135(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642135
He TJazizadeh F(2024)Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Review of Empirical Research on Trust in AI-Powered Smart Home EcosystemsComputing in Civil Engineering 202310.1061/9780784485224.064(530-538)Online publication date: 25-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784485224.064
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents