Why is AI Not a Panacea for Data Workers? An Interview Study on Human-AI Collaboration in Data Storytelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the potential for human-AI collaboration in the context of data storytelling for data workers. Data storytelling communicates insights and knowledge from data analysis. It plays a vital role in data workers' daily jobs since it boosts team collaboration and public communication. However, to make an appealing data story, data workers need to spend tremendous effort on various tasks, including outlining and styling the story. Recently, a growing research trend has been exploring how to assist data storytelling with advanced artificial intelligence (AI). However, existing studies focus more on individual tasks in the workflow of data storytelling and do not reveal a complete picture of humans' preference for collaborating with AI. To address this gap, we conducted an interview study with 18 data workers to explore their preferences for AI collaboration in the planning, implementation, and communication stages of their workflow. We propose a framework for expected AI collaborators' roles, categorize people's expectations for the level of automation for different tasks, and delve into the reasons behind them. Our research provides insights and suggestions for the design of future AI-powered data storytelling tools.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".