  Research has a long history of discussing what is superior in predicting
certain outcomes: statistical methods or the human brain. This debate has
repeatedly been sparked off by the remarkable technological advances in the
field of artificial intelligence (AI), such as solving tasks like object and
speech recognition, achieving significant improvements in accuracy through
deep-learning algorithms (Goodfellow et al. 2016), or combining various methods
of computational intelligence, such as fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and
case-based reasoning (Medsker 2012). One of the implicit promises that underlie
these advancements is that machines will 1 day be capable of performing complex
tasks or may even supersede humans in performing these tasks. This triggers new
heated debates of when machines will ultimately replace humans (McAfee and
Brynjolfsson 2017). While previous research has proved that AI performs well in
some clearly defined tasks such as playing chess, playing Go or identifying
objects on images, it is doubted that the development of an artificial general
intelligence (AGI) which is able to solve multiple tasks at the same time can
be achieved in the near future (e.g., Russell and Norvig 2016). Moreover, the
use of AI to solve complex business problems in organizational contexts occurs
scarcely, and applications for AI that solve complex problems remain mainly in
laboratory settings instead of being implemented in practice. Since the road to
AGI is still a long one, we argue that the most likely paradigm for the
division of labor between humans and machines in the next decades is Hybrid
Intelligence. This concept aims at using the complementary strengths of human
intelligence and AI, so that they can perform better than each of the two could
separately (e.g., Kamar 2016).
