Skip to content

Topic

Human-AI Interaction

How people learn from, imitate and depend on machine-produced solutions.

Current stories

scienceOne report1 publisher

Volunteers in an LMU study scored the most responsive AI below the least responsive human on consciousness

Nearly 1,100 participants in an LMU study rated even the most responsive AI as less conscious than the least responsive human. On awareness the two groups judged humans and AI much more alike, so the word in the question changes the answer.

Publishers:sciencedaily.com

Reality

Evidence50
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+10
Incentives35
Confidence45
buildOne report1 publisher

JetBrains and Lund researchers recast AI code review as a trust-calibration problem

JetBrains and Lund University propose review tools that flag per-segment risk in AI-written code, a design shaped with 17 practitioners and a 43-person survey. They argue diff review cannot keep up with agent-sized changes unless tools show reviewers where to read closely.

Reality

Evidence35
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+15
Incentives50
Confidence40
buildOne report1 publisher

Auto-shown AI answers cut 'I don't know' from 35 percent to 1 percent in a movie-trivia study

Researchers found an auto-displayed AI answer cut 'I don't know' responses from 35 percent to 1 percent, though the model was mostly wrong. A 10-cent penalty for wrong answers still left abstention at 7 percent, so review tools need more than an abstain button.

Publishers:the-decoder.com

Reality

Evidence55
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+20
Incentives
Not scored
Confidence50
scienceOne report1 publisher

The words that flag a chatbot are turning up in ordinary human writing, Northeastern researchers say

Three Northeastern researchers describe chatbot vocabulary and sentence habits moving into human prose. The measurement behind that description is a preprint on how people and ChatGPT copy each other mid-conversation.

Publishers:phys.org

Reality

Evidence38
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+15
Incentives40
Confidence45
scienceOne report1 publisher

Specific suggestions help explain AI's emotional-support edge in two follow-up experiments

Manchester and Durham researchers had 390 people rate comfort messages without knowing who wrote them, and the AI text scored higher for anger and fear. Human messages carrying the same practical advice were judged just as supportive.

Publishers:phys.org

Reality

Evidence45
Adoption30
Hype gap+12
Incentives55
Confidence50
scienceOne report1 publisher

Expecting an AI grader pushed job seekers to embellish in a University of Georgia experiment

Applicants who believed software would score their one-way videos stretched the truth more often, the rating agent scored them no lower for it, and telling them what it measured brought the exaggeration back down.

Publishers:phys.org

Reality

Evidence54
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+18
Incentives58
Confidence47
scienceOne report1 publisher

Machine-found strategies stick with humans only under three conditions, Max Planck experiment finds

In a 1,155-person study, one participant in 600 found the optimal play unaided. With an AI demonstrator seeded in the first generation, the strategy survived in nine of 15 groups.

Publishers:phys.org

Reality

Evidence62
Adoption
Not scored
Hype gap+24
Incentives55
Confidence54