REVIEW 4 cited by
Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. In such a paradigm, humans are found to rarely trigger analytical thinking and face difficulties in communicating the nuances of conflicting opinions to the AI when disagreements occur. To tackle this challenge, we propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates. To empower AI with deliberative capabilities, we designed Deliberative AI, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as a bridge between humans and domain-specific models to enable flexible conversational interactions and faithful information provision. An exploratory evaluation on a graduate admissions task shows that Deliberative AI outperforms conventional explainable AI (XAI) assistants in improving humans' appropriate reliance and task performance. Based on a mixed-methods analysis of participant behavior, perception, user experience, and open-ended feedback, we draw implications for future AI-assisted decision tool design.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Understanding Fortunetelling with Large Language Models in China: User Practices, Perceptions, and Impacts on Beliefs and Decisions
Chinese users treat LLM fortunetelling as entertainment and emotional support; it subtly shifts confidence and timing but rarely reverses decisions.
-
Wisdom of the Crowd, Without the Crowd: A Socratic LLM for Asynchronous Deliberation on Perspectivist Data
A Socratic LLM that questions annotators during labeling improved post-deliberation accuracy and confidence compared to a prior synchronous human-deliberation benchmark.
-
Who Benefits from AI? Self-Selection, Skill Gap, and the Hidden Costs of AI Feedback
Chess platform data shows self-selection by skilled users into AI feedback masks true effects, widens skill gaps, and causally reduces intellectual diversity via 42 natural experiments.
-
Democracy-in-Silico: Institutional Design as Alignment in AI-Governed Polities
In an LLM-agent simulation, adding a constitutional charter and an AI mediator reduces a text-based power-preservation score, suggesting institutional design as an alignment lever.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.