REVIEW 1 cited by
Attribution and Persuasion: The Paradox of Interpretable AI
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
This paper studies AI persuasion by distinguishing between two reasons for disagreement: attention differences, where the AI detects features the decision-maker missed, and comprehension differences, where the AI and the decision-maker interpret observed features differently. We show that AI is more effective in persuading the decision-maker when the disagreement is due to attention differences rather than comprehension differences. We also show that the AI's interpretability shapes how the decision-maker attributes the sources of disagreement and, in turn, whether they follow the AI's recommendation. Our main result is that making AI uninterpretable can actually enhance persuasion and, in the presence of career concerns, improve decision accuracy.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Directional AI Advice: Experimental Evidence from Healthcare
Patients randomized to access a pre-visit AI chatbot received 4.6 pp fewer prescriptions and 2.7 pp more diagnostic tests, reflecting the chatbot's encoded caution against medications and clean recommendations for testing.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.