Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes a game-theoretic model where individuals consult a personal AI assistant before taking advice from a human advisor, with the AI's recommendations being predictable. The study finds that advisors counteract AI recommendations more aggressively as AI consultation frequency increases, leading to a non-monotonic relationship between AI adoption levels and advisor performance. Specifically, advisor performance loss is highest at intermediate AI adoption levels and vanishes at extremes.
Advisor performance paradoxically suffers most when personal AI is used moderately, highlighting the complex strategic interactions introduced by personal AI assistants.
Personal AI assistants have changed how people use institutional and professional advice. We study this new strategic setting in which individuals may stochastically consult a personal AI whose recommendation is predictable to the focal advisor. Personal AI enters this strategic environment along two dimensions: how often it is consulted and how much weight it receives in the human's decision when consulted. Anticipating this, the advisor responds by counteracting the personal AI recommendation. Counteraction becomes more aggressive as personal AI is consulted more often. Yet advisor performance is non-monotone: equilibrium loss is highest at intermediate levels of adoption and vanishes when personal AI is never used or always used. Trust affects performance through a single relative influence index, and greater relative influence of personal AI increases advisor vulnerability. Extending the framework to costly credibility building, we characterize how personal AI adoption reshapes incentives to invest in trust.
BAIR