AI Oversight and Human Mistakes: Evidence from Centre Court
Authors: David Almog, Romain Gauriot, Lionel Page, Daniel Martin
Abstract: Powered by the increasing predictive capabilities of machine learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have begun to be used to overrule human mistakes in many settings. We provide the first field evidence this AI oversight carries psychological costs that can impact human decision-making. We investigate one of the highest visibility settings in which AI oversight has occurred: the Hawk-Eye review of umpires in top tennis tournaments. We find that umpires lowered their overall mistake rate after the introduction of Hawk-Eye review, in line with rational inattention given psychological costs of being overruled by AI. We also find that umpires increased the rate at which they called balls in, which produced a shift from making Type II errors (calling a ball out when in) to Type I errors (calling a ball in when out). We structurally estimate the psychological costs of being overruled by AI using a model of rational inattentive umpires, and our results suggest that because of these costs, umpires cared twice as much about Type II errors under AI oversight.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.