To achieve human-like common sense about everyday life, machine learning systems must understand and reason about the goals, preferences, and actions of other agents in the environment. By the end of their first year of life, human infants intuitively achieve such common sense, and these cognitive achievements lay the foundation for humans' rich and complex understanding of the mental states of others. Can machines achieve generalizable, commonsense reasoning about other agents like human infants?

-- We compare three methods of familiarizing a human with an artificial intelligence (AI) teammate ("agent") prior to operation in a collaborative, fast-paced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) environment. In a between-subjects user study (n=60), participants either read documentation about the agent, trained alongside the agent prior to the mission, or were given no familiarization. Results showed that the most valuable information about the agent included details of its decision-making algorithms and its relative strengths and weaknesses compared to the human. This information allowed the familiarization groups to form sophisticated team strategies more quickly than the control group. Documentation-based familiarization led to the fastest adoption of these strategies, but also biased participants towards risk-averse behavior that prevented high scores. Participants familiarized through direct interaction were able to infer much of the same information through observation, and were more willing to take risks and experiment with different control modes, but reported weaker understanding of the agent's internal processes. Significant differences were seen between individual participants' risk tolerance and methods of AI interaction, which should be considered when designing human-AI control interfaces. Based on our findings, we recommend a human-AI team familiarization method that combines AI documentation, structured in-situ training, and exploratory interaction. I. INTRODUCTION Governments have long sought to reduce reliance on human operators in high-stakes domains such as aircraft surveillance, coastal scanning, and mountainous search-and-rescue. Simultaneously, the capabilities of deep learning techniques and accessibility of high-powered compute resources have made autonomous teammates technically viable for many use cases. In recent years governments have begun supporting research to apply embodied artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to reduce the number of humans sent into high-risk scenarios by increasing the level of authority granted to AI systems in human-AI teams.

Generative AI brings novel and impressive abilities to help people in everyday tasks. There are many AI workflows that solve real and complex problems by chaining AI outputs together with human interaction. Although there is an undeniable lure of AI, it's uncertain how useful generative AI workflows are after the novelty wears off. Additionally, tools built with generative AI have the potential to be personalized and adapted quickly and easily, but do users take advantage of the potential to customize? We conducted a three-week longitudinal study with 12 users to understand the familiarization and customization of generative AI tools for science communication. Our study revealed that the familiarization phase lasts for 4.3 sessions, where users explore the capabilities of the workflow and which aspects they find useful. After familiarization, the perceived utility of the system is rated higher than before, indicating that the perceived utility of AI is not just a novelty effect. The increase in benefits mainly comes from end-users' ability to customize prompts, and thus appropriate the system to their own needs. This points to a future where generative AI systems can allow us to design for appropriation.

Content provided by IBM and TNW. Today's AI systems are quickly evolving to become humans' new best friend. We now have AIs that can concoct award-winning whiskey, write poetry, and help doctors perform extremely precise surgical operations. But one thing they can't do -- which is, on the surface, far simpler than all those other things -- is use common sense. Common sense is different from intelligence in that it is usually something innate and natural to humans that helps them navigate daily life, and cannot really be taught.

To achieve human-like common sense about everyday life, machine learning systems must understand and reason about the goals, preferences, and actions of others. Human infants intuitively achieve such common sense by making inferences about the underlying causes of other agents' actions. Directly informed by research on infant cognition, our benchmark BIB challenges machines to achieve generalizable, common-sense reasoning about other agents like human infants do. As in studies on infant cognition, moreover, we use a violation of expectation paradigm in which machines must predict the plausibility of an agent's behavior given a video sequence, making this benchmark appropriate for direct validation with human infants in future studies. We show that recently proposed, deep-learning-based agency reasoning models fail to show infant-like reasoning, leaving BIB an open challenge.