The Evolution of HCI and Human Factors: Integrating Human and Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review HCI history from both the perspective of its 1980s split with human factors and its nature as a discipline. We then revisit human augmentation as an alternative to user friendliness that seems particularly relevant in the areas of inclusive design and artificial intelligence. Viewing human-AI interaction as a kind of human augmentation raises issues such as how to promote trust and situation awareness. We also pose the question: Can HCI and human factors engineering work together to solve the increasingly urgent challenges of human-AI technology? In an initial look at this question, we contrast the different approaches of HCI and human factors on emerging AI research. This article concludes by considering other potentially promising paths for HCI. We propose more collaboration between HCI and human factors, or related disciplines, in the future to address the massive challenges posed by the rapid growth in data science and artificial intelligence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it