Bounded Minds, Generative Machines: Envisioning Conversational AI that Works with Human Heuristics and Reduces Bias Risk

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13376v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 20:23:28 GMT
• Title: Bounded Minds, Generative Machines: Envisioning Conversational AI that Works with Human Heuristics and Reduces Bias Risk
• Authors: Jiqun Liu,
• Abstract summary: This article outlines a research pathway grounded in rationality, and argues that conversational AI should be designed to work with humans rather than against them.<n>It identifies key directions for detecting cognitive vulnerability, supporting judgment under uncertainty, and evaluating conversational systems beyond factual accuracy, toward decision quality and cognitive robustness.
• Score: 6.879756503058167
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Conversational AI is rapidly becoming a primary interface for information seeking and decision making, yet most systems still assume idealized users. In practice, human reasoning is bounded by limited attention, uneven knowledge, and reliance on heuristics that are adaptive but bias-prone. This article outlines a research pathway grounded in bounded rationality, and argues that conversational AI should be designed to work with human heuristics rather than against them. It identifies key directions for detecting cognitive vulnerability, supporting judgment under uncertainty, and evaluating conversational systems beyond factual accuracy, toward decision quality and cognitive robustness.

Related papers

• The AI Cognitive Trojan Horse: How Large Language Models May Bypass Human Epistemic Vigilance [0.0]
  Large language model (LLM)-based conversational AI systems present a challenge to human cognition.<n>This paper proposes that a significant epistemic risk from conversational AI may lie not in inaccuracy or intentional deception, but in something more fundamental.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T22:28:56Z)
• Embracing Trustworthy Brain-Agent Collaboration as Paradigm Extension for Intelligent Assistive Technologies [51.93721053301417]
  This paper argues that the field is poised for a paradigm extension from Brain-Computer Interfaces to Brain-Agent Collaboration.<n>We emphasize reframing agents as active and collaborative partners for intelligent assistance rather than passive brain signal data processors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-25T00:25:45Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Engaging with AI: How Interface Design Shapes Human-AI Collaboration in High-Stakes Decision-Making [8.948482790298645]
  We examine how various decision-support mechanisms impact user engagement, trust, and human-AI collaborative task performance.<n>Our findings reveal that mechanisms like AI confidence levels, text explanations, and performance visualizations enhanced human-AI collaborative task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T02:03:00Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart.<n>We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition.<n>We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• Enabling High-Level Machine Reasoning with Cognitive Neuro-Symbolic Systems [67.01132165581667]
  We propose to enable high-level reasoning in AI systems by integrating cognitive architectures with external neuro-symbolic components. We illustrate a hybrid framework centered on ACT-R and we discuss the role of generative models in recent and future applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T21:20:17Z)
• Human Uncertainty in Concept-Based AI Systems [37.82747673914624]
  We study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based AI systems. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses in concept-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-22T19:17:57Z)
• BIASeD: Bringing Irrationality into Automated System Design [12.754146668390828]
  We claim that the future of human-machine collaboration will entail the development of AI systems that model, understand and possibly replicate human cognitive biases. We categorize existing cognitive biases from the perspective of AI systems, identify three broad areas of interest and outline research directions for the design of AI systems that have a better understanding of our own biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-01T02:52:38Z)
• Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making [46.625616262738404]
  We use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting. We focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T22:25:41Z)
• You Impress Me: Dialogue Generation via Mutual Persona Perception [62.89449096369027]
  The research in cognitive science suggests that understanding is an essential signal for a high-quality chit-chat conversation. Motivated by this, we propose P2 Bot, a transmitter-receiver based framework with the aim of explicitly modeling understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-11T12:51:07Z)

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.