Trading Degrees of Freedom: User Control in Pens,GPT,and Automated Vehicles

Abstract

Technology development often has profound consequences for human agency. Considering the evolution of seemingly mundane tools, such as pens, can help us anticipate the consequences of emerging technology. We consider how the evolution of pens might guide automation and artificial intelligence (AI) design. Automation and AI change activities by trading degrees of freedom—expanding, eliminating, or resolving—to transform intent into action. The evolution of pens shows three approaches to trading degrees of freedom. A technology-based approach eliminates degrees of freedom to improve efficiency A human-centered approach trades degrees of freedom to enhance human agency. A system-centered approach trades degrees of freedom to address domain entropy and promote resilience. We link trading degrees of freedom to concrete design considerations with examples from pens, large language models, and vehicle automation. We hope that analyzing a technology far removed from AI and vehicle automation will provoke new discussions of humanautomation interaction.

Keywords

human-automation interaction design principles design strategy tools cognitive engineering

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackley

D. H.

Hinton

G. E.

Sejnowski

T. J.

(1985). A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines*. Cognitive Science, 9(1), 147–169.

Allosso

S. F.

(2022). How to make notes and write. https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/write/

Ashby

W. R.

(1956). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf

Bíró

L. J.

(1945). U.S. Patent No. 2,390,636. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Cheng

(2022). The joy of abstraction: An exploration of math, category theory, and life. Cambridge University Press.

Chiou

E. K.

Lee

J. D.

(2023). Trusting automation: Designing for responsivity and resilience. Human Factors, 65(1), 137–165.

Dowdy

(2016, January 18). Bic Cristal ballpoint pen review. The Pen Addict. https://www.penaddict.com/blog/2016/1/17/bic-cristal-ball- point-pen-review

Dowdy

Hurley

(Hosts). (2022, October 19). A fine mist of Yama (No. 535) [Audio podcast episode]. In The Pen Addict. Relay FM. https://www.relay.fm/penaddict/535

Dowling

(2020). The cheap pen that changed writing forever. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201028-history-of-the-ball-point-pen

10.

Fisher

P. C.

(1966). U.S. Patent No. 3,285,228. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office._

11.

Fitts

P. M.

(1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381.

12.

Flach

J. M.

Dominguez

C. O.

(1995). Use-centered design: Integrating the user, instrument, and goal. 3(3), 19–24.

13.

Hick

W. E.

(1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26.

14.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.

15.

Lee

J. D.

Wickens

C. D.

Liu

Boyle

L. N.

(2017). Designing for people: An introduction to human factors engineering. CreateSpace.

16.

McPhee

(2017). Draft no. 4: On the writing process. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

17.

Merat

Seppelt

Louw

Engström

Lee

J. D.

Johansson

Green

C. A.

Katazaki

Monk

Itoh

McGehee

Sunda

Unoura

Victor

Schieben

Keinath

(2019). The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: Proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 87–98.

18.

Norman

D. A.

(2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12(4), 14–19.

19.

OpenAI. (2022). Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt

20.

Oxford University Press. (2023). Pen, n.3. In OED Online. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/139975

21.

Petroski

. (1994). Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering. Cambridge University Press.

22.

Schur

(2011). My utilitarian Chinese memento: The history of the ball- point pen. Ezra’s Archives. 01(1), 89–102.

23.

Schwartz

(2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. ECCO.

24.

Sheridan

T. B.

Verplank

W. L.

(1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Massachusetts Inst of Tech Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Lab.

25.

Shneiderman

(2020). Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495–504.

26.

Shneiderman

(2022). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press.

27.

Taylor

F. W.

(1919). The principles of scientific management. Harper & brothers.

28.

Treisman

(1993). Representing visual objects. In Attention and Performance (Vol. 14, pp. 163–175).

29.

Vicente

K. J.

(1990). Coherence- and correspondence-driven work domains: Implications for systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9(6), 493–502.

30.

Ward

(2020). The perfection of the paper clip: Curious tales of invention, accidental genius, and stationery obsession. Atria Books.

31.

Waterman

L. E.

(1884). U.S. Patent No. 307,735. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office._

32.

Woods

D. D.

(2015). Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of resilience engineering. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 5–9.

33.

Woods

D. D.

(2018). The theory of graceful extensibility: Basic rules that govern adaptive systems. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(4), 433–457.