Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates human reliance on AI in a collaborative question-answering game, decoupling delegation (allowing AI to act autonomously) and adoption (evaluating AI suggestions). The study reveals that humans exhibit suboptimal collaboration, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions and over-relying when AI is incorrect. The authors identify factors like model confidence miscalibration and confirmation bias as drivers of these suboptimal decisions, suggesting interventions to improve human-AI trust.
Humans miss nearly 4% of opportunities to leverage correct AI suggestions in question answering, while blindly trusting AI errors almost 2% of the time, revealing a significant gap in effective human-AI collaboration.
AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.
