AI让人们对
AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized
- 用错误AI建议干扰判断，人更不愿说'不知道'
- 有AI时答对率降为无AI时的1/3，自信却翻倍
- 即使奖励准确率，仍难恢复理性暂停判断
知道何时说‘我不知道’是人类判断的核心能力，但AI助手几乎对任何问题都给出流畅回答。在五项实验中（总样本N = 3,132；四项预注册，一项直接复现），参与者回答难题且可随时拒绝作答。我们设计问题使AI建议错误，从而将使用AI与准确性分离开。仅提供AI访问就几乎消除人们暂停判断的意愿，无论建议是主动请求还是被动显示。结果：参与者答题更多，但正确率仅为无AI时的约三分之一，而信心几乎翻倍。当准确率被激励、错误被惩罚时，参与者减少依赖和采纳AI建议，答对率提升，暂停判断频率增加，但仍远低于无AI情况。随着AI建议日益普遍且无需请求，它们不仅影响答案准确度，更可能改变人们决定是否具备足够知识作答的元认知阈值。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question. In five experiments (N = 3,132; four preregistered, one direct replication), participants answered difficult questions and could always decline to respond. We engineered the questions so that AI advice was wrong, separating AI use from its accuracy. Merely having access to AI nearly eliminated participants' willingness to suspend judgment, and this held whether the advice was actively requested or simply displayed. Consequently, participants answered more questions but were correct about a third as often as when AI was unavailable-yet their confidence nearly doubled. Incentivizing accuracy and penalizing inaccuracy led participants to seek and follow AI advice less, answer more accurately, and suspend judgment more often, though still far less than when AI was unavailable. As AI suggestions grow ubiquitous and unsolicited, they may not simply affect answer accuracy; they may even alter the metacognitive threshold at which people decide whether they know enough to answer.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。