Project Management

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Who should be held responsible for the decisions made using AI?

linkedin twitter facebook   Artificial Intelligence   Complexity   Decision Making  
avatar
Prajkta Waditwar Senior Manager| Box Inc. San Jose, Ca, United States
Decision making is the essential skill managers need. AI systems, particularly those using complex machine learning models, can be "black boxes," making it difficult to understand how decisions are made.  Decisions made by AI can be challenging, particularly if the AI system makes an error or a biased decision.
Sort By:
avatar
Francisco Herrera
Community Champion
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico. Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
The decision should undoubtedly be made by the one who makes it, since the AI only provides information, and it is up to the executor to decide what to do with the information provided.
avatar
Keith Novak Tukwila, Wa, United States
Whether you trusted a source because it was AI or a YouTube video, if you advocate for that source then you are responsible for trusting the source. If you don't know how the decision was made...ask. If you don't get a well defined answer that you can verify independently, question the source.
avatar
Rami Kaibni
Community Champion
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten Associates New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
I do agree with Keith. The PM usually has the ultimate responsbility if AI based decisions was made by him or her!
avatar
Winston C Ikekeonwu PMP Investor| Consultant, Publisher, Author, Engineer Jos, Pl, Nigeria
Thanks for this question, Prajktar.

Whatever output delivered by LLMs are still suggestions until acted upon.

Whoever acts on those suggestions should be held responsible for his or her actions.
avatar
Kiron Bondale Retired | Mentor| Retired Welland, Ontario, Canada
Prajkta -

If we look at AI as "just another team member", the same rules would apply. Whether it is one of your human team members or a recommendation or information provided by an AI capability, you as a PM remain accountable to your stakeholders for the consequences.

Kiron
avatar
Eric Simms Senior Program Manager Baltimore, Maryland, United States
The person who uses AI's response is responsible, for it is also that person's responsibility to verify AI's answer is correct before acting on it.
avatar
Sergio Luis Conte Helping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based Organizations Buenos Aires, Argentina
AI entities do not make decisions. "Human in the loop" is the key foundation on AI. It does mean that an AI entity (software, hardware, etc which works with AI) just create an output with things to be taking into account and a related probability associated to it. After checking that the final decision is always on human being.
avatar
Omar Jabbar Project Management and Digital Transformation Consultant| OGreen IT Service Inc. Ontario, Canada
I agree completely with Sergio. AI is a tool that assists managers in the decision-making process, and the outcome will depend on the information/data provided. The person who makes the decision is accountable, keeping in mind that it is not about making right or wrong decisions, but rather understanding the risk level and the impact associated with each decision. AI will enable quick analysis and provide options. The ultimate decision lies with the individual.
avatar
Prajkta Waditwar Senior Manager| Box Inc. San Jose, Ca, United States
Thank you all for the answers.
My point is- sometimes the organisations might make it mandatory to use some AI based tools and be it a PM or anyone who are required to use it, has to follow the tool results. Definitely, AI does not make the decisions but suggests it.
avatar
Raman Chadha Manager| Deloitte Millbrae, United States
I agree that the person using GenAI should be accountable. HOWEVER, there needs to be some level of accountability for creators of GenAI systems too (and to Prajakta's point, whoever is signing them off as acceptable tools to be used in the enterprise). GenAI systems need to be more transparent regarding their algorithms, and continue to strive and caution the user regarding their output. We are entering into a world where GenAI outputs will be taken at face value, much like we take Google hits. There is a limit to the extent of fact-checking a user can do, and I believe that there needs to be a shared accountability model.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.

- Will Rogers

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors