Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved pith:5FWFK7EBrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Language models are transforming the ways that their users engage with the world. Despite impressive capabilities, over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. How can we develop scaffolding around language models to curate more appropriate use? We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse. Frictions involve small modifications to a user's experience, e.g., the addition of a button impeding model access and reminding a user of their expertise relative to the model. Through a user study with real humans, we observe shifts in user behavior from the imposition of a friction over LLMs in the context of a multi-topic question-answering task as a representative task that people may use LLMs for, e.g., in education and information retrieval. We find that frictions modulate over-reliance by driving down users' click rates while minimally affecting accuracy for those topics. Yet, frictions may have unintended effects. We find marked differences in users' click behaviors even on topics where frictions were not provisioned. Our contributions motivate further study of human-AI behavioral interaction to inform more effective and appropriate LLM use.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Cognitive offloading and the speedup illusion in human-AI interaction
Preregistered behavioral study identifies a speedup illusion where users overestimate time savings from AI assistance on cognitive tasks despite no actual difference in completion times.
-
The efficiency-gain illusion: People underestimate the rate of AI use and overestimate its benefits on simple tasks
Three pre-registered studies with 2691 participants show people underestimate their AI usage rate and overestimate efficiency gains on simple tasks, with prior use entrenching further adoption.
-
Towards an Appropriate Level of Reliance on AI: A Preliminary Reliance-Control Framework for AI in Software Engineering
Interviews with 22 developers produced a preliminary reliance-control framework that uses levels of control over AI to identify appropriate reliance in software engineering.
-
Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI
The paper consolidates risks of overreliance on LLMs, identifies gaps in current measurement approaches, and proposes mitigation strategies to keep AI as a human-compatible thought partner.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.