屏幕之外的评估：与资源受限创业者共同评估AI生成的商业计划书
Evaluating Beyond the Screen: Collective Assessment of AI-Generated Business Plans with Resource-Constrained Entrepreneurs
查看机构详情
- University of Maryland, Baltimore County（马里兰大学巴尔的摩分校）
- University of Pittsburgh（匹兹堡大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
该研究针对资源受限创业者，将BizChat工具扩展出评估模块，通过小组讨论让14名参与者集体评估AI生成的商业计划，发现该方式能提升评估效果。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
创业者越来越多地使用ChatGPT等面向终端用户的生成式AI技术来处理贷款申请和商业计划等关键文件，而AI生成的错误——比如错误的价格、虚构的产品——可能会影响贷款或融资结果。当前支持评估AI生成文本的方法，都假设是单个用户在屏幕上单独评估输出，这对数字和AI技能差异很大的资源受限创业者来说要求尤其高。在这项早期工作中，我们探索了如何将评估组织成小组形式，作为集体活动来完成。我们扩展了AI驱动的商业计划工具BizChat，新增了一个评估模块，将每个生成的主张与创业者的原始输入关联起来。我们与马里兰州的社区组织合作，将BizChat嵌入各类创业项目中，共有14名研讨会参与者通过“思考-配对-分享”讨论来评估他们的商业计划。早期发现表明，像“主张-输入关联”这样的界面支架能为参与者提供具体、个性化的评估依据，而小组环境则将评估延伸到了屏幕之外：参与者要求提供纸质副本，使用评分标准对不同计划进行比较，并借助同伴的知识来验证自己难以单独判断的内容。
英文摘要
Entrepreneurs increasingly use end-user generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT for high-stakes documents like loan applications and business plans, where AI-generated errors---a wrong price, a fabricated product---can affect loan or funding outcomes. Current approaches to supporting evaluation of AI-generated text assume a single user assessing output alone, on screen. This can be especially demanding for resource-constrained entrepreneurs, whose digital and AI skills vary widely. In this early-stage work, we explore how evaluation might instead be organized in a group setting and completed as a collective activity. We extended BizChat, an AI-powered business-planning tool, with an evaluation module that links each generated claim to the entrepreneur's original input. We partner with community organizations in Maryland---embedding BizChat within various entrepreneurship programs---where workshop attendees (N=14) evaluated their plans through think-pair-share discussion. Early findings suggest interface scaffolds like claim-to-input links primed attendees with concrete, personal evaluations, which the group setting then extended beyond the screen: attendees requested printed copies, used rubrics to compare across plans, and drew on peers' knowledge to verify what they could not easily judge alone.
