When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to include explanations together with AI-generated recommendation to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.
翻译:当人们在作出困难的决定时得到建议时,他们往往在当下作出更好的决定,并在这个过程中增加他们的知识。然而,这种偶然的学习只有在人们认知地接触他们得到的信息并周密地处理这种信息时才会发生。人们如何处理他们从大赦国际得到的信息和建议,以及他们是否深入地参与这种信息和咨询以便学习?为了回答这些问题,我们进行了三次试验,要求个人作出营养决定,并接受模拟的AI建议和解释。在第一次试验中,我们发现当人们在作出选择之前得到建议和解释时,他们作出比他们没有得到这种帮助时更好的决定,但是他们没有学习。在第二次试验中,参与者首先作出自己的选择,然后看到从大赦国际得到的建议和解释;这一条件还导致决定的改进,但没有学习。然而,在第三次试验中,我们只向参与者提出AI作出解释,但没有建议,而不得不作出自己的决定。在第一次试验中,我们发现,当人们在作出更精确的决定和学习成果之前,他们做了比他们做的要好得多的决定,但是他们没有学会。在第二次试验中,参与者首先作出自己的选择,然后才作出更深入的解释,然后才能作出解释。这个解释,然后才能作出最精确地说明。这个工作是用来说明,然后在作出一个解释。