155 - Understanding Human Engagement Risk When Designing AI and GenAI User Experiences

The relationship between AI and ethics is both developing and delicate. On one hand, the GenAI advancements to date are impressive. On the other, extreme care needs to be taken as this tech continues to quickly become more commonplace in our lives. In today’s episode, Ovetta Sampson and I examine the crossroads ahead for designing AI and GenAI user experiences.     While professionals and the general public are eager to embrace new products, recent breakthroughs, etc.; we still need to have some guard rails in place. If we don’t, data can easily get mishandled, and people could get hurt. Ovetta possesses firsthand experience working on these issues as they sprout up. We look at who should be on a team designing an AI UX, exploring the risks associated with GenAI, ethics, and need to be thinking about going forward.     Highlights/ Skip to: (1:48) Ovetta's background and what she brings to Google’s Core ML group (6:03) How Ovetta and her team work with data scientists and engineers deep in the stack (9:09)  How AI is changing the front-end of applications (12:46) The type of people you should seek out to design your AI and LLM UXs (16:15) Explaining why we’re only at the very start of major GenAI breakthroughs (22:34) How GenAI tools will alter the roles and responsibilities of designers, developers, and product teams (31:11) The potential harms of carelessly deploying GenAI technology (42:09) Defining acceptable levels of risk when using GenAI in real-world applications (53:16) Closing thoughts from Ovetta and where you can find her     Quotes from Today’s Episode “If artificial intelligence is just another technology, why would we build entire policies and frameworks around it? The reason why we do that is because we realize there are some real thorny ethical issues [surrounding AI]. Who owns that data? Where does it come from? Data is created by people, and all people create data. That’s why companies have strong legal, compliance, and regulatory policies around [AI], how it’s built, and how it engages with people. Think about having a toddler and then training the toddler on everything in the Library of Congress and on the internet. Do you release that toddler into the world without guardrails? Probably not.” - Ovetta Sampson (10:03) “[When building a team] you should look for a diverse thinker who focuses on the limitations of this technology- not its capability. You need someone who understands that the end destination of that technology is an engagement with a human being.  You need somebody who understands how they engage with machines and digital products. You need that person to be passionate about testing various ways that relationships can evolve. When we go from execution on code to machine learning, we make a shift from [human] agency to a shared-agency relationship. The user and machine both have decision-making power. That’s the paradigm shift that [designers] need to understand. You want somebody who can keep that duality in their head as they’re testing product design.” - Ovetta Sampson (13:45) “We’re in for a huge taxonomy change. There are words that mean very specific definitions today. Software engineer. Designer. Technically skilled. Digital. Art. Craft. AI is changing all that. It’s changing what it means to be a software engineer. Machine learning used to be the purview of data scientists only, but with GenAI, all of that is baked in to Gemini. So, now you start at a checkpoint, and you’re like, all right, let’s go make an API, right? So, the skills, the understanding, the knowledge, the taxonomy even, how we talk about these things, how do we talk about the machine who speaks to us talks to us, who could create a podcast out of just voice memos?” - Ovetta Sampson (24:16) “We have to be very intentional [when building AI tools], and that’s the kind of folks you want on teams. [Designers] have to go and play scary scenarios. We have to do that. No designer wants to be “Negative Nancy,” but this technology has huge potential to harm. It has harmed. If we don’t have the skill sets to recognize, document, and minimize harm, that needs to be part of our skill set.  If we’re not looking out for the humans, then who actually is?” - Ovetta Sampson (32:10) “[Research shows] things happen to our brain when we’re exposed to artificial intelligence… there are real human engagement risks that are an opportunity for design.  When you’re designing a self-driving car, you can’t just let the person go to sleep unless the car is fully [automated] and every other car on the road is self-driving. If there are humans behind the wheel, you need to have a feedback loop system—something that’s going to happen [in case] the algorithm is wrong. If you don’t have that designed, there’s going to be a large human engagement risk that a car is going to run over somebody who’s [for example] pushing a bike up a hill[...] Why? The car could not calculate the right speed and pace of a person pushing their bike. It had the speed and pace of a person walking, the speed and pace of a person on a bike, but not the two together. Algorithms will be wrong, right?” - Ovetta Sampson (39:42) “Model goodness used to be the purview of companies and the data scientists. Think about the first search engines. Their model goodness was [about] 77%. That’s good, right? And then people started seeing photos of apes when [they] typed in ‘black people.’ Companies have to get used to going to their customers in a wide spectrum and asking them when they’re [models or apps are] right and wrong.  They can’t take on that burden themselves anymore. Having ethically sourced data input and variables is hard work. If you’re going to use this technology, you need to put into place the governance that needs to be there.” - Ovetta Sampson (44:08)