Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how users adjust their reliance on generative AI when exposed to varying error rates across tasks of different difficulty. Through a controlled diagram generation experiment with induced AI errors, the study measures user reliance based on task completion time and AI usage. Surprisingly, the results indicate that users do not significantly reduce their reliance more when errors occur on easy tasks compared to hard tasks, challenging the assumption that users are inherently averse to "jagged" AI performance.
People aren't as bothered by AI failing at easy tasks as you might think, suggesting our expectations for AI competence are more nuanced than a simple aversion to errors.
The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.
Microsoft Research
Stanford HAI