AI access makes people almost entirely unwilling to say "I don't know," study finds
Study of 3,132 people finds AI access nearly eliminates "I don't know" answers while sharply reducing accuracy.
Researchers ran five experiments with 3,132 participants and found that access to Step 3.5 Flash, which was almost always wrong on fine movie-detail questions, cut judgment suspension from 36–44% to 3–6%. Without incentives, confidence rose from 29.6 to 75.9 while correct answers fell from 27.6% to 10.0%; across studies, AI-access participants were correct 9.2% of the time versus 27.5% without AI. Financial incentives reduced advice-seeking but did not restore abstention to no-AI levels, and automatically displayed answers produced a similar collapse, from 35% to 1% without incentives. The authors call the pattern Epistemia and cite related work linking AI use to weaker critical thinking and metacognition.
- Five experiments with 3,132 participants used Step 3.5 Flash on hallucination-prone movie details.
- AI access cut "I don't know" rates from about 36–44% to 3–6%.
- Confidence rose from 29.6 to 75.9 while accuracy fell from 27.6% to 10%.
- Incentives reduced advice-seeking but did not restore no-AI abstention levels.
- Auto-shown AI answers dropped suspension from 35% to 1% without incentives.
- Tags
- ai-overreliancehuman-judgmentepistemiahallucinationslanguage-modelsmetacognitioncognitive-offloading
- Organizations
- MicrosoftSwiss Business School
From the original article
4 min read at the-decoder.com
A study with more than 3,000 participants shows that just having access to AI answers nearly eliminated people's willingness to say "I don't know." In one experiment, it dropped from 44 to 3 percent, even though the AI was almost always wrong. Participants who used AI felt more confident but were correct only about a third as often as those without it.
By Matthias Bastian · the-decoder.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.