Promoting Critical Thinking With Domain-Specific Generative AI Provocations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19975v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:20:05 GMT
• Title: Promoting Critical Thinking With Domain-Specific Generative AI Provocations
• Abstract summary: Some argue that AI-driven provocations, such as questions asking for human clarification and justification, are beneficial for eliciting critical thinking.<n>We reflect on how design decisions shape the form and effectiveness of such provocations.<n>Our observations and user feedback suggest that domain-specific provocations, implemented through productive friction and interactions that depend on user contribution, can meaningfully support critical thinking.
• Score: 11.57437441019857
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evidence on the effects of generative AI (GenAI) on critical thinking is mixed, with studies suggesting both potential harms and benefits depending on its implementation. Some argue that AI-driven provocations, such as questions asking for human clarification and justification, are beneficial for eliciting critical thinking. Drawing on our experience designing and evaluating two GenAI-powered tools for knowledge work, ArtBot in the domain of fine art interpretation and Privy in the domain of AI privacy, we reflect on how design decisions shape the form and effectiveness of such provocations. Our observations and user feedback suggest that domain-specific provocations, implemented through productive friction and interactions that depend on user contribution, can meaningfully support critical thinking. We present participant experiences with both prototypes and discuss how supporting critical thinking may require moving beyond static provocations toward approaches that adapt to user preferences and levels of expertise.

Related papers

• Persuasion and Safety in the Era of Generative AI [0.0]
  The EU AI Act prohibits AI systems that use manipulative or deceptive techniques to undermine informed decision-making.<n>My dissertation addresses the lack of empirical studies in this area by developing a taxonomy of persuasive techniques.<n>It provides resources to mitigate the risks of persuasive AI and fosters discussions on ethical persuasion in the age of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T06:04:46Z)
• Must Read: A Systematic Survey of Computational Persuasion [60.83151988635103]
  AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through manipulation and unethical influence.<n>Our survey outlines future research directions to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T17:26:31Z)
• A Taxonomy of Questions for Critical Reflection in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making [3.884856136722027]
  Decision-makers run the risk of relying too much on machine recommendations.<n> Reflection has been shown to increase cognitive engagement and improve critical thinking.<n>We present a taxonomy of questions aimed at promoting reflection and cognitive engagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T10:44:08Z)
• De-skilling, Cognitive Offloading, and Misplaced Responsibilities: Potential Ironies of AI-Assisted Design [3.6284577335311563]
  We analyzed over 120 articles and discussions from UX-focused subreddits.<n>Our findings indicate that practitioners express optimism about AI reducing repetitive work and augmenting creativity.<n>We argue that UX professionals should critically evaluate AI's role beyond immediate productivity gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T21:47:16Z)
• AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
  There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness.<n>The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z)
• Using Scenario-Writing for Identifying and Mitigating Impacts of Generative AI [3.2566808526538873]
  Impact assessments have emerged as a common way to identify the negative and positive implications of AI deployment. But it is also essential to critically interrogate the current literature and practice on impact assessment. In this provocation, we do just that by first critiquing the current impact assessment literature and then proposing a novel approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T07:48:58Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making [47.33241893184721]
  In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole.<n>We propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making.<n>Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T14:34:06Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Doubting AI Predictions: Influence-Driven Second Opinion Recommendation [92.30805227803688]
  We propose a way to augment human-AI collaboration by building on a common organizational practice: identifying experts who are likely to provide complementary opinions. The proposed approach aims to leverage productive disagreement by identifying whether some experts are likely to disagree with an algorithmic assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T20:35:07Z)

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.