Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04319v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 23:54:57 GMT
• Title: Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty
• Abstract summary: We induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance.<n>We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks.<n>We unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting.
• Score: 48.30228856226023
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.

Related papers

• A paradox of AI fluency [28.34945398004834]
  We show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode.<n>These differences lead to a paradox of AI: fluent users experience more failures than novices.<n>Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T17:51:13Z)
• The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity? [53.15349353876531]
  As AI becomes more capable, we entrust it with more general and consequential tasks.<n>We operationalize this question using a bias-variance decomposition of the errors made by AI models.<n>As more capable AIs pursue harder tasks, requiring more sequential action and thought, our results predict failures to be accompanied by more incoherent behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T14:52:03Z)
• AGI Is Coming... Right After AI Learns to Play Wordle [4.2909314120969855]
  multimodal agents, in particular, OpenAI's Computer-User Agent (CUA), trained to control and complete tasks through a standard computer interface, similar to humans.<n>We evaluated the agent's performance on the New York Times Wordle game to elicit model behaviors and identify shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T20:58:58Z)
• Human-AI Collaborative Game Testing with Vision Language Models [0.0]
  This study investigates how AI can improve game testing by developing and experimenting with an AI-assisted workflow.<n>We evaluate the effectiveness of AI assistance under four conditions: with or without AI support, and with or without detailed knowledge of defects and design documentation.<n>Results indicate that AI assistance significantly improves defect identification performance, particularly when paired with detailed knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T23:14:23Z)
• Guiding Through Complexity: What Makes Good Supervision for Hard Math Reasoning Tasks? [74.88417042125985]
  We investigate various data-driven strategies that offer supervision data at different quality levels upon tasks of varying complexity.<n>We find that even when the outcome error rate for hard task supervision is high, training on such data can outperform perfectly correct supervision of easier subtasks.<n>Our results also reveal that supplementing hard task supervision with the corresponding subtask supervision can yield notable performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-27T17:55:27Z)
• Offline Imitation Learning Through Graph Search and Retrieval [57.57306578140857]
  Imitation learning is a powerful machine learning algorithm for a robot to acquire manipulation skills. We propose GSR, a simple yet effective algorithm that learns from suboptimal demonstrations through Graph Search and Retrieval. GSR can achieve a 10% to 30% higher success rate and over 30% higher proficiency compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T06:12:21Z)
• Easy-to-Hard Generalization: Scalable Alignment Beyond Human Supervision [98.97575836717931]
  Current AI alignment methodologies rely on human-provided demonstrations or judgments.<n>This raises a challenging research question: How can we keep improving the systems when their capabilities have surpassed the levels of humans?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T15:12:38Z)
• Assessing Student Errors in Experimentation Using Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models: A Comparative Study with Human Raters [9.899633398596672]
  We investigate the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automatically identifying student errors. An AI system based on the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 series was developed and tested against human raters. Our results indicate varying levels of accuracy in error detection between the AI system and human raters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T12:03:12Z)
• Human and AI Perceptual Differences in Image Classification Errors [13.045020949359621]
  This study first analyzes the statistical distributions of mistakes from the two sources and then explores how task difficulty level affects these distributions.<n>We find that even when AI learns an excellent model from the training data, one that outperforms humans in overall accuracy, these AI models have significant and consistent differences from human perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-18T05:09:07Z)
• Human Decision Makings on Curriculum Reinforcement Learning with Difficulty Adjustment [52.07473934146584]
  We guide the curriculum reinforcement learning results towards a preferred performance level that is neither too hard nor too easy via learning from the human decision process. Our system is highly parallelizable, making it possible for a human to train large-scale reinforcement learning applications. It shows reinforcement learning performance can successfully adjust in sync with the human desired difficulty level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-04T23:53:51Z)

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.