The efficiency-gain illusion: People underestimate the rate of AI use and overestimate its benefits on simple tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22687v1
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 16:28:20 GMT
• Title: The efficiency-gain illusion: People underestimate the rate of AI use and overestimate its benefits on simple tasks
• Abstract summary: We investigate people's propensity to use AI for cognitively simple tasks and assess whether their reliance is well-calibrated.<n>We find that people frequently choose to use AI even when doing so is inefficient.<n>Our results shed light on the mechanisms and biases underlying people's choice of whether to use AI as well as the risk of an overreliance feedback loop.
• Score: 39.088619511248986
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: People are increasingly turning to AI assistance for simple tasks, e.g., arithmetic, spell-check, and answering simple questions. But does AI assistance actually save users time and effort? We investigate people's propensity to use AI for cognitively simple tasks and assess whether their reliance is well-calibrated. Across three pre-registered user studies (N = 2691), we find that people frequently choose to use AI even when doing so is inefficient (i.e. provides no meaningful time or effort savings). We identify systematic miscalibration at two levels: (1) a self-estimate miscalibration where people on average believe that they are using AI less than they actually are, and (2) efficiency-gain illusions where people overestimate how much time and effort savings AI use affords. We also identify a session-level carryover effect where a participant's prior AI use leads to further AI adoption and entrenches their miscalibration about time savings. Our results shed light on the mechanisms and biases underlying people's choice of whether to use AI as well as the risk of an overreliance feedback loop.

Related papers

• How AI Assistance Affects Human Skill Development: A Study of Learning with Logic Puzzles [12.810110526024873]
  We examine tension in a controlled logic-puzzle experiment involving on-demand AI assistance.<n>We find that lower-cost assistance induces more frequent AI use.<n>We also find that participants who request AI assistance during the AI-access phase perform worse at the task after assistance is removed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T17:46:11Z)
• Characterizing initial human-AI proof formalization workflows [66.06866890889131]
  Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs.<n>We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization.<n>A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T22:58:19Z)
• The Impact of AI Usage and Informativeness on Skill Development in Logical Reasoning [13.546638788752924]
  We examine how both AI usage and informativeness can shape learning in a logical reasoning task with on-demand access to AI assistance.<n>We find that greater AI usage is associated with weaker skill development, whereas light AI users perform similarly to matched users who do not use AI.<n>Our findings suggest that AI can, depending on context, either complement human skill development by amplifying independent reasoning or can act as a substitute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T19:55:57Z)
• 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)
• Explainable AI as a Double-Edged Sword in Dermatology: The Impact on Clinicians versus The Public [46.86429592892395]
  explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight.<n>We present results from two large-scale experiments combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T00:06:06Z)
• 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)
• Accuracy-Time Tradeoffs in AI-Assisted Decision Making under Time Pressure [31.723686787975687]
  We show how time pressure affects how users use different AI assistances. We also find that a user's overreliance rate is a key predictor of their behaviour. Overall, our work suggests that AI assistances have different accuracy-time tradeoffs when people are under time pressure compared to no time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T23:24:16Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making [4.877174544937129]
  People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-19T00:38:53Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.