A paradox of AI fluency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25905v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:51:13 GMT
• Title: A paradox of AI fluency
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 28.34945398004834
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes

Related papers

• The Addictive Intimacy of AI: Understanding User Disengagement from AI Companions and Why Some Relationships with AI Become Difficult to Leave [12.84374365151797]
  We show that disengagement sometimes is not a single decision but a trajectory: triggers prompt users to question the relationship, attempts to leave collide with barriers, and some users cycle through quitting and returning.<n>We propose the notion of the addictive intimacy of AI, a configuration in which the qualities that make a companion emotionally valuable are the same ones that make it harder for users to limit their use and leave.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T19:56:08Z)
• AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance [1.3667120179358196]
  We provide evidence for two key consequences of AI assistance: reduced persistence and impairment of unassisted performance.<n>We find that although AI assistance improves performance in the short-term, people perform significantly worse without AI and are more likely to give up.<n>These results suggest the need for AI model development to prioritize long-term competence alongside immediate task completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T14:43:48Z)
• Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty [48.30228856226023]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T23:54:57Z)
• 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)
• Lessons From an App Update at Replika AI: Identity Discontinuity in Human-AI Relationships [0.5699788926464752]
  We use Replika AI, a popular US-based AI companion, to shed light on these questions.<n>We find that, after the app removed its erotic role play (ERP) feature, this event triggered perceptions in customers that their AI companion's identity had discontinued.<n>This in turn predicted negative consumer welfare and marketing outcomes related to loss, including mourning the loss, and devaluing the "new" AI relative to the "original"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T20:14:10Z)
• Effects of AI Feedback on Learning, the Skill Gap, and Intellectual Diversity [4.8342038441006805]
  We investigate how AI use affects three interrelated long-term outcomes: learning, skill gap, and diversity of decision strategies. We show that individuals are far more likely to seek AI feedback in situations in which they experienced success rather than failure. As a result, access to AI feedback increases, rather than decreases, the skill gap between high- and low-skilled individuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T11:44:03Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• A User-Centred Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Human-Robot Interaction [70.11080854486953]
  We propose a user-centred framework for XAI that focuses on its social-interactive aspect. The framework aims to provide a structure for interactive XAI solutions thought for non-expert users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T09:56:23Z)
• The MineRL BASALT Competition on Learning from Human Feedback [58.17897225617566]
  The MineRL BASALT competition aims to spur forward research on this important class of techniques. We design a suite of four tasks in Minecraft for which we expect it will be hard to write down hardcoded reward functions. We provide a dataset of human demonstrations on each of the four tasks, as well as an imitation learning baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:18:17Z)

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.