Superhuman Game AI Disclosure: Expertise and Context Moderate Effects on Trust and Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15514v2
• Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 17:39:10 GMT
• Title: Superhuman Game AI Disclosure: Expertise and Context Moderate Effects on Trust and Fairness
• Authors: Jaymari Chua, Chen Wang, Lina Yao,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how capability disclosure influenced behaviors with a superhuman game AI in competitive StarCraft II scenarios.<n>Our results reveal transparency is double-edged: while disclosure could alleviate suspicion, it also provoked frustration and strategic defeatism.<n>This work demonstrates that transparency is not a cure-all; successfully leveraging disclosure to enhance trust and accountability requires careful tailoring to user characteristics.
• Score: 13.63944785085617
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As artificial intelligence surpasses human performance in select tasks, disclosing superhuman capabilities poses distinct challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. However, the impact of such disclosures on diverse user attitudes and behaviors remains unclear, particularly concerning potential negative reactions like discouragement or overreliance. This paper investigates these effects by utilizing Persona Cards: a validated, standardized set of synthetic personas designed to simulate diverse user reactions and fairness perspectives. We conducted an ethics board-approved study (N=32), utilizing these personas to investigate how capability disclosure influenced behaviors with a superhuman game AI in competitive StarCraft II scenarios. Our results reveal transparency is double-edged: while disclosure could alleviate suspicion, it also provoked frustration and strategic defeatism among novices in cooperative scenarios, as well as overreliance in competitive contexts. Experienced and competitive players interpreted disclosure as confirmation of an unbeatable opponent, shifting to suboptimal goals. We release the Persona Cards Dataset, including profiles, prompts, interaction logs, and protocols, to foster reproducible research into human alignment AI design. This work demonstrates that transparency is not a cure-all; successfully leveraging disclosure to enhance trust and accountability requires careful tailoring to user characteristics, domain norms, and specific fairness objectives.

Related papers

• How to Disclose? Strategic AI Disclosure in Crowdfunding [10.090562206470329]
  We find that mandatory AI disclosure significantly reduces crowdfunding performance.<n>Funds raised decline by 39.8% and backer counts by 23.9% for AI-involved projects.<n>This adverse effect is systematically moderated by disclosure strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T16:26:03Z)
• Dark Patterns Meet GUI Agents: LLM Agent Susceptibility to Manipulative Interfaces and the Role of Human Oversight [51.53020962098759]
  This study examines how agents, human participants, and human-AI teams respond to 16 types of dark patterns across diverse scenarios.<n>Phase 1 highlights that agents often fail to recognize dark patterns, and even when aware, prioritize task completion over protective action.<n>Phase 2 revealed divergent failure modes: humans succumb due to cognitive shortcuts and habitual compliance, while agents falter from procedural blind spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T22:26:31Z)
• Hide or Highlight: Understanding the Impact of Factuality Expression on User Trust [1.2478643689100954]
  We tested four different ways of disclosing an AI-generated output with factuality assessments.<n>We found that the opaque and ambiguity strategies led to higher trust while maintaining perceived answer quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T20:45:21Z)
• Penalizing Transparency? How AI Disclosure and Author Demographics Shape Human and AI Judgments About Writing [16.237684467706924]
  This study investigates how AI disclosure statement affects perceptions of writing quality.<n>We find that both human and LLM raters consistently penalize disclosed AI use.<n>But only LLM raters exhibit demographic interaction effects: they favor articles attributed to women or Black authors when no disclosure is present.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T07:18:09Z)
• FAIRGAME: a Framework for AI Agents Bias Recognition using Game Theory [51.96049148869987]
  We present FAIRGAME, a Framework for AI Agents Bias Recognition using Game Theory. We describe its implementation and usage, and we employ it to uncover biased outcomes in popular games among AI agents. Overall, FAIRGAME allows users to reliably and easily simulate their desired games and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T15:29:04Z)
• Persona Dynamics: Unveiling the Impact of Personality Traits on Agents in Text-Based Games [14.443840118369176]
  We introduce PANDA: Personality Adapted Neural Decision Agents, a novel method for projecting human personality traits onto agents. We deploy 16 distinct personality types across 25 text-based games and analyze their trajectories. These findings underscore the promise of personality-adapted agents for fostering more aligned, effective, and human-centric decision-making in interactive environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T13:17:00Z)
• AI persuading AI vs AI persuading Humans: LLMs' Differential Effectiveness in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior [70.24245082578167]
  Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is vital to combat climate change, yet turning awareness into intention and action remains elusive.<n>We explore large language models (LLMs) as tools to promote PEB, comparing their impact across 3,200 participants.<n>Results reveal a "synthetic persuasion paradox": synthetic and simulated agents significantly affect their post-intervention PEB stance, while human responses barely shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T21:40:55Z)
• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Role of AI Quality Disclosure in Lie Detection [5.539973416151908]
  We investigate how low-quality AI advisors, lacking quality disclosures, can help spread text-based lies while seeming to help people detect lies.<n>We find that when relying on low-quality advisors without disclosures, participants' truth-detection rates fall below their own abilities, which recovered once the AI's true effectiveness was revealed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T15:58:05Z)
• The impact of labeling automotive AI as "trustworthy" or "reliable" on user evaluation and technology acceptance [0.0]
  This study explores whether labeling AI as "trustworthy" or "reliable" influences user perceptions and acceptance of automotive AI technologies. Using a one-way between-subjects design, the research involved 478 online participants who were presented with guidelines for either trustworthy or reliable AI. Although labeling AI as "trustworthy" did not significantly influence judgments on specific scenarios, it increased perceived ease of use and human-like trust, particularly benevolence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T14:48:24Z)
• Banal Deception Human-AI Ecosystems: A Study of People's Perceptions of LLM-generated Deceptive Behaviour [11.285775969393566]
  Large language models (LLMs) can provide users with false, inaccurate, or misleading information. We investigate peoples' perceptions of ChatGPT-generated deceptive behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T16:36:06Z)
• Users are the North Star for AI Transparency [111.5679109784322]
  Despite widespread calls for transparent artificial intelligence systems, the term is too overburdened with disparate meanings to express precise policy aims or to orient concrete lines of research. Part of why this happens is that a clear ideal of AI transparency goes unsaid in this body of work. We explicitly name such a north star -- transparency that is user-centered, user-appropriate, and honest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-09T18:53:29Z)
• Learning to Influence Human Behavior with Offline Reinforcement Learning [70.7884839812069]
  We focus on influence in settings where there is a need to capture human suboptimality. Experiments online with humans is potentially unsafe, and creating a high-fidelity simulator of the environment is often impractical. We show that offline reinforcement learning can learn to effectively influence suboptimal humans by extending and combining elements of observed human-human behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-03T23:41:55Z)
• Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making [10.049226270783562]
  We study the effects of feature-based explanations on distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions. Our findings show that explanations influence fairness perceptions, which, in turn, relate to humans' tendency to adhere to AI recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T19:10:59Z)
• Detecting adversaries in Crowdsourcing [71.20185379303479]
  This work investigates the effects of adversaries on crowdsourced classification, under the popular Dawid and Skene model. The adversaries are allowed to deviate arbitrarily from the considered crowdsourcing model, and may potentially cooperate. We develop an approach that leverages the structure of second-order moments of annotator responses, to identify large numbers of adversaries, and mitigate their impact on the crowdsourcing task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-07T15:07:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.