Skip to main content

Machine-Human Interaction: A Paradigm Shift?

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 12762)

Abstract

The abstract should summarize the contents of the paper in short terms, i.e. 150–250 words. In this article, I perform a preliminary exploration on hypothesised the paradigm shift from human-initiated interaction to machine-initiated interaction. There are consequences and structural issues that need to be highlighted when considering such an important topic beyond the academic setting and ontological issues. While continuing to develop the theoretical work related to evaluating this shift, I use this as an opportunity to ask a classic “so what” question. What matters when machines are the ones trying to initiate interactions with humans? Specifically, what happens to parts of humanity that are often excluded from issues related to the deployment of AI in society? How can such groups, which are often marginalised react and to machines that act autonomously? To do this, I chose Black Twitter as the main case study of this article to explore if and how marginalisation can occur when machines initiate interactions with humans. Recently, Twitter has become the ground of much experimentation with AI deployed by its operators. However, it is also the experiment ground for third-party “bots” that interact with humans, often, without the latter being aware that of the interaction undertaken is with a machine. The article is part of a larger study investigating if there are significant differences between the way machines and members of Black Twitter interact with one another.

Keywords

  • Human-computer interaction
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Paradigm shift
  • Twitter
  • Black twitter
  • Bots
  • Marginalisation

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-78462-1_9
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-78462-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  1. Kuhn, T.S.: La structure des révolutions scientifiques. Flammarion, Paris (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Licklider, J.C.R.: Man-computer symbiosis. In: IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. HFE-1, pp. 4–11 (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Saint-Louis, H.: User Perceptions of Security Risks in Multiple Authentications. University of Toronto Libraries, Toronto (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis, C.: HCI for people with cognitive disabilities. Accessibility Comput. 83, 12–24 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Wandke, H.: Assistance in human–machine interaction: a conceptual framework and a proposal for a taxonomy. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 6(2), 129–155 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Mankoff, J., Hayes, G.R., Kasnitz, D.: Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Armagno, G.: The role of HCI in the construction of disability. In: The 26th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction, vol. 26, Swinton (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frauenberger, C.: Disability and technology: a critical realist perspective. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility, Lisbon (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Czaja, S.J.: The impact of aging on access to technology. Accessibility Comput. 83, 7–11 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Baecker, R.M., Moffatt, K., Massimi, M.: Technologies for aging gracefully. Interactions 19(3), 32–36 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Sin, J., Munteanu, C.: An empirically grounded sociotechnical perspective on designing virtual agents for older adults. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5–6(35), 481–510 (2020)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. DiSalvo, C., Light, A., Hirsch, T., Le Dantec, C.A., Goodman, E., Hill, K.: HCI, communities and politics. In: CHI EA 2010: CHI 2010 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rode, J.A.: A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 393–400 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Hankerson, D., Marshall, A.R., Booker, J., El Mimouni, H., Walker, I., Rode, J.A.: Does technology have race? In: CHI EA 2016: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schlesinger, A., Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E.: Intersectional HCI: engaging identity through gender, race, and class. In: CHI 2017: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rankin, Y., Thomas, J.: Straighten up and fly right: rethinking intersectionality in HCI research. Interactions 26(6), 64–68 (2019)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, I.F., Smith, A.D., To, A., Toyama, K.: Critical race theory for HCI. In: HI 2020: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schlesinger, A., O’Hara, K.P., Taylor, A.S.: Let’s talk about race: identity, chatbots, and AI. In: Proceedings of the 2018 chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grudin, J.: A moving target: the evolution of human-computer interaction. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, 3 edn., pp. xxvii–lxi. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grudin, J.: From Tool to Partner: The Evolution of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan and Claypool, Williston, Vermont (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Suchman, L.: Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dourish, P.: Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Norman, D.A.: Design rules based on analyses of human error. Commun. ACM 26(4), 254–258 (1983)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded. Basic Books, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience – a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P.: The three paradigms of HCI. In: CHI, San Jose (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Harrison, S., Sengers, P., Tatar, D.: Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact. Comput. 23, 385–392 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Guzman, A.L.: Introductions: “what is human-machine communication, anyway?” In: Guzman, A.L. (ed.) Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves, pp. 1–28. Peter Lang, New York (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Farooq, U., Grudin, J.: Human-computer integration. ACM Interact. 23(6), 26–32 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Farooq, U., Grudin, J.T.: Paradigm shift from human computer interaction to integration. In: CHI 2017, Denver (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shneiderman, B.: Fighting for the user. Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 9, 27–29 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shneiderman, B.: Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Vincente, K.: The Human Factor. Alfred A. Knopf Canada, Toronto (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cranor, L.F., Garfinkel, S. (eds.): Security and Usability: Designing Secure Systems that People Can Use. O’Reilly, Sebastapol (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Garfinkel, S., Ritcher Lipford, H.: Usable Security: History, Themes, and Challenges. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Williston, Vermount (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Winner, L.: Do artifacts have politics? In: MacKenzie, D., Wajcman, J. (eds.) The Social Shaping of Technology: HOW the Refrigerator Got its Hum, pp. 26–38. Open University Press, Philadelphia (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bijker, W.E., Law, J.: Postrcript: technology, stability, and social theory. In: Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 290–308. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sclove, R.: Democracy and Technology. The Guilford Press, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Williams, R., Edge, D.: The social shaping of technology. Res. Policy 25, 865–899 (1996)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Foucault, M.: Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison. Gallimard, Paris (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Latour, B.: Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 225–258. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dyer-Witheford, N.: Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Nakamura, L.: A Review of Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. Routledge, London (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nakamura, L.: Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Noble, S.U.: Algorithms of Oppression : How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press, New York (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  47. Benjamin, R.: Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Wiley, Cambridge (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Eubanks, V.: Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press, New York (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Broussard, M.: Artificial Intelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hao, K.: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says, December 2020. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/

  51. Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T.: Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gebru, T.: Race and gender. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, pp. 251–269. Oxford Press, Oxford (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jo, E.S., Gebru, T.: Lessons from archives: strategies for collecting sociocultural data in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Maragh, R.S.: “Our struggles are unequal”: black women’s affective labor between television and twitter. J. Commun. Inq. 40(4), 351–369 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  55. Chatman, D.: Black Twitter and the politics of viewing Scandal. In: Gray, J., Sandvoss, C., Harrington, C.L. (eds.) Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, Second Edition edn., pp. 299–314. New York University Press, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Harlow, S., Benbrook, A.: How #Blacklivesmatter: exploring the role of hip-hop celebrities in constructing racial identity on Black Twitter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22(3), 352–368 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  57. Williams, A., Gonlin, V.: I got all my sisters with me (on Black Twitter): second screening of how to get away with murder as a discourse on black womanhood. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20(7), 984–1004 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  58. Gutiérrez, A.: Situating representation as a form of erasure: #OscarsSoWhite, black twitter, and latinx twitter. Telev. New Med. (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Smit, A., Bosch, T.: Television and black twitter in South Africa: our perfect wedding. Media Cult. Soc. 42(7–8), 1512–1527 (2020)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  60. Ince, J., Rojas, F., Davis, C.A.: The social media response to black lives matter: how twitter users interact with black lives matter through hashtag use. Ethn. Racial Stud. 40(11), 1814–1830 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  61. Edrington, C.L., Lee, N.: Tweeting a social movement: black lives matter and its use of twitter to share information, build community, and promote action. J. Publ. Interest Commun. 2(2), 289–306 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  62. Schiappa, J.: #IfTheyGunnedMeDown: the necessity of “Black Twitter” and hashtags in the age of ferguson. ProudFlesh: New Afrikan J. Cul. Polit. Conscious. (10) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lavan, M.: The Negro tweets his presence: black twitter as social and political watchdog. Mod. Lang. Stud. 45(1), 56–65 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stevens, L., Maurantonio, N.: Black twitter asks Rachel: racial identity theft in “Post-Racial” America. Howard J. Commun. 29(2), 179–195 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  65. Brock, A.: From the blackhand side: twitter as a cultural conversation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Med. 56(4), 529–549 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  66. Clark, M.: To Tweet Our Own Cause: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Online Phenomenon “Black Twitter.” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School, Chapel Hill (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Clark, M.: Black twitter: building connection through cultural conversation. In: Rambukkana, N. (ed.) Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, pp. 205–215. Peter Lang, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Murthy, D., Gross, A., Pensavalle, A.: Urban social media demographics: an exploration of twitter use in major american cities. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 21(1), 33–49 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  69. Lee, L.A.: Black twitter: a response to bias in mainstream media. Soc. Sci. 6(2), 1–17 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Freelon, D., Lopez, L., Clarck, M.D., Jackson, S.J.: How Black Twitter and Other Social Media Communities Interact With Mainstream News. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Miami (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Prasad, P.: Beyond rights as recognition: black twitter and posthuman coalitional possibilities. Prose Stud.: History Theory Criticism 38(1), 50–73 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  72. Chaudhry, I.: “Not So Black and White”: discussions of race on twitter in the aftermath of #Ferguson and the shooting death of mike brown. Cult. Stud. ↔ Critic. Methodol. 16(3), 296–304 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maragh, R.S.: Authenticity on “Black Twitter”: reading racial performance and social networking. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 19(7), 591–609 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Graham, R., Smith, S.: The content of our #Characters: black twitter as counterpublic. Sociol. Race Ethn. 2(4), 433–449 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  75. Hill, M.L.: “Thank You, Black Twitter”: state violence, digital counterpublics, and pedagogies of resistance. Urban Educ. 53(2), 286–302 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  76. Tillery Jr., A.B.: What kind of movement is black lives matter? The view from twitter. J. Race Ethn. Polit. 4(2), 297–323 (2019)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  77. Mercklé, P.: Sociologie des réseaux sociaux, Troisième édition ed., Paris: La découverte (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wasserman, S.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  79. Mercklé, P.: Les réseaux: un nouveau concept, une vieille histoire. Ressources en Sci. économiques et sociales 06, 03 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Carley, K.: A theory of group stability. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56(3), 331–354 (1991)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  81. Weber, M.: Max Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  82. Boudon, R.: Raison, Bonnes Raisons. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Durkheim, E.: De la division du travail social. Presses universitaires de France, Paris (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Parsons, T.: The Structure of Social Action; A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. Free Press, New York (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  85. Bourdieu, P.: Choses dites : Le sens commun. Éditions de Minuit, Paris (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Simonite, T.: Behind the Paper That Led to a Google Researcher’s Firing. Accessed 8 Dec 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/behind-paper-led-google-researchers-firing/

  87. Bush, V.: As we may think. Atlantic 1(176), 101–108 (1945)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Albert, W., Tullis, T.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine, Metz (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Turing, A.: Computing machinery and intelligence (1950). In: Copeland, B.J. (ed.) The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life plus The Secrets of Enigma, pp. 441–464. Oxford University Press, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  91. Pew Research Center: Social Media Fact Sheet, 19 June 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/. Accessed 01 Feb 2021

  92. Florini, S.: Tweets, tweeps, and signifyin’: communication and cultural performance on “Black Twitter.” TEMA J. Land Use Mob. Environ. 15(3), 223–237 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Jones, T.: Toward a description of african american vernacular english dialect regions using “Black Twitter. Am. Speech 90(4), 403–440 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  94. Sharma, S.: Black Twitter? Racial hashtags, networks and contagion. New Formations 19(78), 46–64 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  95. Katzenbach, C., Ulbricht, L.: Algorithmic governance. J. Internet Regul. 8(4), 1–18 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  96. König, P.D.: Dissecting the algorithmic leviathan: on the socio-political anatomy of algorithmic governance. Philos. Technol. 33(3), 467–485 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00363-w

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  97. Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  98. Cervantes Saavedra, M.D.: L’ingénieux Hidalgo Don Quichotte de la Manche, Éditions du Seuil, Paris (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  99. Beskow, D.M., Carley, K.M.: Bot conversations are different: leveraging network metrics for bot detection in twitter. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  100. Gilani, Z., Farahbakhsh, R., Tyson, G., Wang, L., Crowcroft, J.: Of bots and humans (on Twitter). In: ASONAM 2017: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Gilani, Z., Farahbakhsh, R., Tyson, G., Crowcroft, J.: A large scale behavioural analysis of bots and humans on twitter. ACM Trans. Web 13(1), 2–24 (2019)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  102. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C.A., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Online human-bot interactions: detection, estimation, and characterization. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  103. Duh, A., Rupnik, M.S., Korošak, D.: Collective behavior of social bots is encoded in their temporal twitter activity. Big Data 6(2), 113–123 (2018)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  104. Wald, R., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Napolitano, A., Sumner, C.: Predicting susceptibility to social bots on twitter. In: 2013 IEEE 14th International Conference on Information Reuse & Integration, San Francisco (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  105. Knight Steele, C.: The Digital Barbershop: Blogs and Online Oral Culture Within the African American Community, vol. 2, no. 4. Social Media + Society, October 2016

    Google Scholar 

  106. Long, T.: As Seen on Twitter: African-American Rhetorical Traditions Gone Viral. Eastern Michigan University Library, Ypsilanti (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hervé Saint-Louis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Saint-Louis, H. (2021). Machine-Human Interaction: A Paradigm Shift?. In: Kurosu, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Methods and Tools. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12762. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78462-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78462-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78461-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78462-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)