Artificial Versus Human Intelligence in Computer-Aided Diagnostics

“” (Rauner, Schreier, Spöttl, Die Zukunft computergestützter Kfz-Diagnose. Rechnergeführte Handlangerarbeit oder qualifizierte Facharbeit? Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, 2002b) Extensive research has been conducted on diagnostic work in automotive service over the past decades. The question remained open as to what the different answers given by the designers of AI-supported diagnostic systems as well as their users are due to. Insights into the connection between technical innovation and the change of work content and forms were gained through the implementation practice, which turned out to be much more difficult than expected. The designers of the AI system were surprised by the need for training expressed by the users. The users, on the other hand, were able to convincingly demonstrate that in the absence of training, highly problematic work routines become entrenched. From the developers’ point of view, there is no need for any training on the new systems, as the aim is to use the potential of artificial intelligence for higher quality and user guidance. From this point of view, the need for training is interpreted as a system weakness. This view is opposed by the experience of workshop experts, who point to the limits of artificial intelligence and assume an increase in qualification requirements when introducing these systems.