Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the use of AI assistance for simple cognitive tasks, finding that people frequently opt for AI even when it's inefficient. The study reveals two key miscalibrations: underestimation of AI usage frequency and overestimation of the time/effort savings it provides. Furthermore, prior AI use leads to increased future adoption, reinforcing these miscalibrations.
People systematically overestimate the efficiency gains from using AI for simple tasks, even when it wastes their time.
People are increasingly turning to AI assistance for simple tasks, e.g., arithmetic, spell-check, and answering simple questions. But does AI assistance actually save users time and effort? We investigate people's propensity to use AI for cognitively simple tasks and assess whether their reliance is well-calibrated. Across three pre-registered user studies (N = 2691), we find that people frequently choose to use AI even when doing so is inefficient (i.e. provides no meaningful time or effort savings). We identify systematic miscalibration at two levels: (1) a self-estimate miscalibration where people on average believe that they are using AI less than they actually are, and (2) efficiency-gain illusions where people overestimate how much time and effort savings AI use affords. We also identify a session-level carryover effect where a participant's prior AI use leads to further AI adoption and entrenches their miscalibration about time savings. Our results shed light on the mechanisms and biases underlying people's choice of whether to use AI as well as the risk of an overreliance feedback loop.
Stanford HAI