arXiv preprint ·
Impact of Expertise and Trust on AI-assisted Work
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) agents promise to extend what users can accomplish beyond their existing expertise, but they also raise the risk of producing plausible-looking work that users may struggle to evaluate. We ask how task-relevant expertise and trust in AI shape agent-assisted work. To isolate these factors, we conduct a think-aloud study in which 20 professionals with varying data-science expertise use the same agentic tool to complete the same data-science hiring assessment, used at a major U.S. company. We find that surface productivity can come at the expense of understanding: participants who delegated more completed more of the task, but were also more likely to produce invalid solutions. Experts more often resisted this tradeoff, sacrificing completion to decompose the task and scrutinize agent outputs. Our findings call for evaluating agentic assistance not only by how much it accomplishes, but by whether users remain able to evaluate the work they produce.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
ArguScale: Evidence-Grounded Human-AI Sensemaking Across Concurrent Live Conversations
sGLP: Simulating People with Stochastic Agents
AuthScribe: Supporting Agency and Authorship in LLM-Assisted Reflective Journaling
Rethinking Opinion Measurement Interfaces for Human-in-the-Loop Optimization
Side-Vent Design for Microphone-Based Mechanomyography Sensors: Modeling and Experimental Evaluation of Contact Dependence
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.