Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by Citation bot (talk) to last version by Headbomb |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, template type. Add: chapter-url, date, chapter, s2cid. Removed or converted URL. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox3 | #UCB_webform_linked 901/2306 |
||
Line 11:
A concept of the automatic [[Turing test]] pioneered by [[Moni Naor]] (1996)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/human_abs.html |author=Naor, Moni |title=Verification of a human in the loop or Identification via the Turing Test |access-date=12 May 2021}}</ref> is another precursor of human-based computation. In Naor's test, the machine can control the access of humans and computers to a service by challenging them with a [[natural language processing]] (NLP) or [[computer vision]] (CV) problem to identify humans among them. The set of problems is chosen in a way that they have no algorithmic solution that is both effective and efficient at the moment. If it existed, such an algorithm could be easily performed by a computer, thus defeating the test. In fact, Moni Naor was modest by calling this an automated Turing test. The [[imitation game]] described by [[Alan Turing]] (1950) didn't propose using CV problems. It was only proposing a specific NLP task, while the Naor test identifies and explores a large [[AI-complete|class]] of problems, not necessarily from the ___domain of NLP, that could be used for the same purpose in both automated and non-automated versions of the test.
Finally, [[Human-based genetic algorithm]] (HBGA)<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/972056 |title=Human-based genetic algorithm |chapter=Human based genetic algorithm |year=2001 |doi=10.1109/ICSMC.2001.972056 |access-date=12 May 2022|last1=Kosorukoff |first1=A. |volume=5 |pages=3464–3469 |isbn=0-7803-7087-2 |s2cid=13839604 }}</ref> encourages human participation in multiple different roles. Humans are not limited to the role of evaluator or some other predefined role, but can choose to perform a more diverse set of tasks. In particular, they can contribute their innovative solutions into the evolutionary process, make incremental changes to existing solutions, and perform intelligent recombination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://gpbib.cs.ucl.ac.uk/gecco2005lbp/papers/56-hammond.pdf |author=Hammond, Michelle O.; and Terence C. Fogarty|title=Co-operative OuLiPian (Ouvroir de littérature potentielle) Generative Literature Using Human-Based Evolutionary Computing |access-date=12 May 2022}}</ref> In short, HBGA allows humans to participate in all operations of a typical [[genetic algorithm]]. As a result of this, HBGA can process solutions for which there are no computational innovation operators available, for example, natural languages. Thus, HBGA obviated the need for a fixed representational scheme that was a limiting factor of both standard and interactive EC.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/949485 |title=Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation, pp. 1275-1296 |author=Takagi, Hideyuki |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |date=September 2001 |volume=89 |issue=9 |pages=1275–1296 |doi=10.1109/5.949485 |hdl=2324/1670053 |s2cid=16929436 |access-date=12 May 2022|hdl-access=free }}</ref> These algorithms can also be viewed as novel forms of social organization coordinated by a computer, according to Alex Kosorukoff and David Goldberg.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://research.3form.com/alex/pub/gecco-2002-18.pdf |title=Evolutionary Computation as a Form of Organization, pp. 965-972 |access-date=12 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707063732/http://research.3form.com/alex/pub/gecco-2002-18.pdf |archive-date=7 July 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
==Classes of human-based computation==
Line 75:
The algorithmic outsourcing techniques used in human-based computation are much more scalable than the manual or automated techniques used to manage outsourcing traditionally. It is this scalability that allows to easily distribute the effort among thousands of participants. It was suggested recently that this mass outsourcing is sufficiently different from traditional small-scale outsourcing to merit a new name [[crowdsourcing]].<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/ |title=The Rise of Crowdsourcing |author=Howe, Jeff |magazine=Wired |date=June 2006|access-date=12 May 2022}}</ref> However, others have argued that crowdsourcing ought to be distinguished from true human-based computation.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461488057 |title=Handbook of Human Computation |author=Michelucci, Pietro |access-date=12 May 2022}}</ref> Crowdsourcing does indeed involve the distribution of computation tasks across a number of human agents, but Michelucci argues that this is not sufficient for it to be considered human computation. Human computation requires not just that a task be distributed across different agents, but also that the set of agents across which the task is distributed be ''mixed:'' some of them must be humans, but others must be traditional computers. It is this mixture of different types of agents in a computational system that gives human-based computation its distinctive character. Some instances of crowdsourcing do indeed meet this criterion, but not all of them do.
Human Computation organizes workers through a task market with APIs, task prices, and software-as-a-service protocols that allow employers / requesters to receive data produced by workers directly in to IT systems. As a result, many employers attempt to manage worker automatically through algorithms rather than responding to workers on a case-by-case basis or addressing their concerns. Responding to workers is difficult to scale to the employment levels enabled by human computation microwork platforms.<ref name="mw-cw">{{cite journal | last1 = Irani | first1 = Lilly|author1-link=Lilly Irani | year = 2015 | title = The Cultural Work of Microwork | journal = New Media & Society | volume = 17 | issue = 5 | pages = 720–739 | doi = 10.1177/1461444813511926| s2cid = 377594 }}</ref> Workers in the system Mechanical Turk, for example, have reported that human computation employers can be unresponsive to their concerns and needs<ref name="to-acm">{{cite
==Applications==
| |||