Safety
This is one of the most important pieces of social science on human and AI interaction that I’ve seen in some time. Experts follow agentic a…
This is one of the most important pieces of social science on human and AI interaction that I’ve seen in some time. Experts follow agentic advice the vast majority of the time (causally), but only a t
This is one of the most important pieces of social science on human and AI interaction that I’ve seen in some time. Experts follow agentic advice the vast majority of the time (causally), but only a tiny fraction credit the agent—majority think they came to decision on their own volition. Reminds me of the classic Nisbett and Wilson study on people following outside influence without realizing it “ But as more work is handed to AI—including AI safety research—these judgment calls are the main levers for people's own values to influence outcomes. If people defer to AI without noticing, then "human in the loop" might provide less assurance than people expect.” New Anthropic research: How AI agents shape experts' judgment calls When experts delegate work to an agent, do they still make the key decisions? We tested this in a randomized trial with 50 professional data analysts.
Related
- GenAI’s popularity has hit a wall. Hard to see how OpenAI is going to make its numbers, and easy to see why they bought a media company. The…
- 💯. there was actually a study about that by @dkroy and @sinanaral in Science in 2018: fake news travels faster than true news.
- Reading right now: How malicious AI swarms can threaten democracy | Science (Some of the authors @mariaressa, @GaryMarcus,...) https://share…
Source: Gary Marcus (X) | 2026-10-27