Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Role of Heuristics and Biases During Complex Choices with an AI Teammate

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 2301.05969 v1 pith:MYUZHS6F submitted 2023-01-14 cs.AI cs.HC

classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords choicescomplexhelperbiaseschoicedecisionexperimentalheuristics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Behavioral scientists have classically documented aversion to algorithmic decision aids, from simple linear models to AI. Sentiment, however, is changing and possibly accelerating AI helper usage. AI assistance is, arguably, most valuable when humans must make complex choices. We argue that classic experimental methods used to study heuristics and biases are insufficient for studying complex choices made with AI helpers. We adapted an experimental paradigm designed for studying complex choices in such contexts. We show that framing and anchoring effects impact how people work with an AI helper and are predictive of choice outcomes. The evidence suggests that some participants, particularly those in a loss frame, put too much faith in the AI helper and experienced worse choice outcomes by doing so. The paradigm also generates computational modeling-friendly data allowing future studies of human-AI decision making.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools