The underlying motivation should be clear to understand where to draw the line.A few years ago, I watched a TED video by Shyam Sankar that talked about Human Computer Interaction. It used many examples to explain how two humans with computers used business intelligence to beat the Chess Supercomputer that beat Kasparov.In the video, Sankar, mentioned that:
Human Computer Simbiosis is making us more capable. So if you want to improve Human-Computer Simbiosis, what can you do?You can start by designing the human into the process. Instead of thinking what a computer would do to solve the problem, design the solution around what the human would do as well. When you do this you will realize that you'll spend all of your time on the interface between man and machine. Specifically on designing around friction and interaction. In fact the friction is more important than the power of the man or the power of the machine in determining over all capability."
As suggested by Shyam Sankar. he continues:
Computers don't detect novel patterns and new behavior, but humans do. Humans using technology, testing hypothesis, searching for insight by asking machines to do things for them. Osama Bin Laden wasn't caught by Artificial Intelligence, he was caught by dedicated, resourceful, brilliant people, in partnership with various technologies. As appealing as it might sound you can't algorithmically find your way to an answer. There's no find Terrorist Button, and the more data we integrate from the most bast variety of sources, accross a wide variety of data formats, from various disparate system the less effective data mining can be. Instead people will need to look at data and search for insight [...] the key for great results here, is finding the right type of cooperation [...][and this is done by] minimizing the friction at the interface.
Who then should be making decisions? The computer or the individual operating the computer? The answer to this question is given by Sankar, by stating that the machine itself would never be able to analyze patterns, imagine or speculate the way humans do, on the other hand computers give us the tools to do these tasks more effectively, such as bringing forward meaningful comparisons, tailored alerts and other opportunistic, relevant and timely decision support pieces of information. In other words, users want to feel in control and want to be given the ability to choose; this is the underlying nature of the relationship between humans and computers.Apple's Human-Computer Interaction Guidelines mention also that:
User ControlAllow the user, not the computer, to initiate and control actions. Some apps attempt to assist the user by offering only those alternatives deemed good for the user or by protecting the user from having to make detailed decisions. Because this approach puts the computer, not the user, in control, it is best confined to parts of the user interface aimed at novice users. Provide the level of user control that is appropriate for your audience.The key is to provide users with the capabilities they need while helping them avoid dangerous, irreversible actions. For example, in situations where the user might destroy data accidentally, you should always provide a warning, but allow the user to proceed if they choose.
IMO abstracting decision making out of the user interface inspires designers to reverse the relationship between men and devices, which could be dangerous.Post extracted from a note to self written as an answer for my original question in UX.SE: Why don't people use the “I'm feeling lucky” button more often?
