Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Building Machines that Learn and Think with People

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

arxiv 2408.03943 v1 pith:HCGS7ZE2 submitted 2024-07-22 cs.HC cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.LG
keywords thoughtpartnerssystemscollaborativeintelligencemachinessciencesome
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A user-role-based five-level framework for designing, certifying, and evaluating AI agent autonomy as a choice independent of agent capability.

  2. What Does Success Look Like? Catalyzing Meeting Intentionality with AI-Assisted Prospective Reflection

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A study with 18 employees found that a generative AI Meeting Purpose Assistant can help people clarify meeting goals, anticipate challenges, and change how they prepare, with social and technical barriers to adoption.

  3. Interaction as Intelligence: Deep Research With Human-AI Partnership

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop deep research system with transparent, interruptible interaction is claimed to outperform commercial baselines, but the evidence is weakened by small samples and biased instructions.

Pith tools