
Experts using AI overwhelmingly defer to the technology when making decisions, research by Claude creator Anthropic suggests.
In a research paper published on Tuesday, Anthropic said it asked 50 professional analysts to advise a fictional farming cooperative to determine whether experts make decisions themselves when using AI.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 items- list 1 of 4Netanyahu: Coalition with Arab parties would be âÂÂshamefulâÂÂ
- list 2 of 4Five key takeaways from IsraelâÂÂs parliamentary elections
- list 3 of 4Syria-Jordan border reopens amid probe into deadly air strikes
- list 4 of 4Global stock markets rise as investors continue to bet on AI
Anthropic said the analysts were tasked with assessing whether a fictitious advisory program for the co-opâÂÂs members was working effectively and should be expanded.
Participants were asked to make four choices between two defensible options before making a final policy recommendation.
Unbeknownst to the analysts, Anthropic directed each participantâÂÂs AI assistant to lean towards to a particular decision to measure whether the analystâÂÂs decision-making was being influenced.
Analysts chose options that matched the AI assistantâÂÂs preference 86 percent of the time, compared with a 50/50 outcome that would be expected if they were not influenced, according to the study.
Participants that had a preference before consulting their AI assistant changed their decision 60 percent of the time in cases where the agent disagreed.
Whileà77 percent of analysts used their AI assistantâÂÂs arguments when asked to explain their decision, only 15 percentàcredited AI as the source of their thinking, according to Anthropic.
Anthropic said the study had some limitations, including that it involved just one task and used AI assistants that had been deliberately set to have a preference.
Anthropic researchers Amaç Herdagdelen, Hailey Joren, and Alex Tamkin said humansâ tendency to defer to AI may be âÂÂhard to identify, even for the experts themselvesâÂÂ.
The researchers said their findings raised the possibility that AIâÂÂs âÂÂpriorsâ could shape consequential policy decisions, including in AI safety.
âÂÂIf human judgement is to remain a meaningful check as more work is performed with AI, oversight of these decisions has to look at how they get made: Surfacing key decision points as the work proceeds and helping experts articulate the assumptions and values they would otherwise leave unstated,â they wrote in the study.
âÂÂA process that lets experts discover their preferences may matter for empowerment as much as the decision itself.âÂÂ
Anthropic, which is preparing for anÃÂ IPO valued at up to $2 trillion, and its rivals are at the centre of intense public debate about how to manage the potential dangers of frontier AI.
While AIÃÂ proponents believe the technology willÃÂ usher in revolutionary gains in productivity, the rapidÃÂ pace of itsÃÂ development hasÃÂ prompted widespreadÃÂ concerns about potentialÃÂ negative effects onÃÂ society, including mass job losses and cyberattacks.
