Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Bending the Automation Bias Curve: A Study of Human and AI-based Decision Making in National Security Contexts

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 2306.16507 v1 pith:NS3IGB66 submitted 2023-06-28 cs.CY cs.SI

Bending the Automation Bias Curve: A Study of Human and AI-based Decision Making in National Security Contexts

classification cs.CY cs.SI
keywords automationbiasbackgrounddecisionespeciallyknowledgelevelssecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Uses of artificial intelligence (AI), especially those powered by machine learning approaches, are growing in sectors and societies around the world. How will AI adoption proceed, especially in the international security realm? Research on automation bias suggests that humans can often be overconfident in AI, whereas research on algorithm aversion shows that, as the stakes of a decision rise, humans become more cautious about trusting algorithms. We theorize about the relationship between background knowledge about AI, trust in AI, and how these interact with other factors to influence the probability of automation bias in the international security context. We test these in a preregistered task identification experiment across a representative sample of 9000 adults in 9 countries with varying levels of AI industries. The results strongly support the theory, especially concerning AI background knowledge. A version of the Dunning Kruger effect appears to be at play, whereby those with the lowest level of experience with AI are slightly more likely to be algorithm-averse, then automation bias occurs at lower levels of knowledge before leveling off as a respondent's AI background reaches the highest levels. Additional results show effects from the task's difficulty, overall AI trust, and whether a human or AI decision aid is described as highly competent or less competent.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Foreign Policy AI Evaluation Gap

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Public technical AI governance almost never evaluates real foreign-policy AI workflows; the paper maps that gap and proposes task-scoped, human-recombined evaluation instead of model leaderboards.