Cognitive Amplification vs Cognitive Delegation in Human-AI Systems: A Metric Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18677v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:39:24 GMT
• Title: Cognitive Amplification vs Cognitive Delegation in Human-AI Systems: A Metric Framework
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a conceptual and mathematical framework for distinguishing cognitive amplification.<n>It shows that AI improves hybrid human-AI performance while preserving human expertise.<n>We argue that human-AI systems should be designed under a cognitive sustainability constraint.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, where it can either enhance human reasoning or induce excessive cognitive dependence. This paper introduces a conceptual and mathematical framework for distinguishing cognitive amplification, in which AI improves hybrid human-AI performance while preserving human expertise, from cognitive delegation, in which reasoning is progressively outsourced to AI systems. To characterize these regimes, we define a set of operational metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), the Dependency Ratio (D), the Human Reliance Index (HRI), and the Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). Together, these quantities provide a low-dimensional metric space for evaluating not only whether human-AI systems achieve genuine synergistic performance, but also whether such performance is cognitively sustainable for the human component over time. The framework highlights a central design tension in human-AI systems: maximizing short-term hybrid capability does not necessarily preserve long-term human cognitive competence. We therefore argue that human-AI systems should be designed under a cognitive sustainability constraint, such that gains in hybrid performance do not come at the cost of degradation in human expertise.

Related papers

• Understanding Cognition-Induced Risks in Agentic AI Systems [46.75121501746157]
  Agentic systems powered by large language models (LLMs) exhibit human-like patterns of cognition.<n>As these systems become deeply integrated across different domains, their cognitive engagement raises critical concerns for human society that remain insufficiently studied.<n>We study their potential risks to human agency, autonomy, and control capability, corresponding to each cognitive level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-15T16:16:29Z)
• The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration [2.1771821757134915]
  We develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance.<n>We show that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities.<n>We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T18:51:50Z)
• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• The Geometry of Learning Under AI Delegation [24.790811527847527]
  As AI systems shift from tools to collaborators, a central question is how the skills of humans relying on them change over time.<n>We study this question mathematically by modeling the joint evolution of human skill and AI delegation as a coupled dynamical system.<n>Our results identify stability, not incentives or misalignment, as the central mechanism by which AI assistance can undermine long-run human performance and skill.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T13:01:22Z)
• Epistemology gives a Future to Complementarity in Human-AI Interactions [42.371764229953165]
  complementarity is the claim that a human supported by an AI system can outperform either alone in a decision-making process.<n>We argue that historical instances of complementarity function as evidence that a given human-AI interaction is a reliable process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T21:04:28Z)
• A Definition of AGI [208.25193480759026]
  The lack of a concrete definition for Artificial General Intelligence obscures the gap between today's specialized AI and human-level cognition.<n>This paper introduces a quantifiable framework to address this, defining AGI as matching the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T01:28:35Z)
• From Consumption to Collaboration: Measuring Interaction Patterns to Augment Human Cognition in Open-Ended Tasks [2.048226951354646]
  The rise of Generative AI, and Large Language Models (LLMs) in particular, is fundamentally changing cognitive processes in knowledge work.<n>We present a framework that analyzes interaction patterns along two dimensions: cognitive activity mode (exploration vs. exploitation) and cognitive engagement mode (constructive vs. detrimental)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T17:20:36Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Cognitive Framework for Delegation Between Error-Prone AI and Human Agents [0.0]
  We investigate the use of cognitively inspired models of behavior to predict the behavior of both human and AI agents. The predicted behavior is used to delegate control between humans and AI agents through the use of an intermediary entity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-06T15:15:21Z)
• 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)

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.