aiqbench analysis
This paper proposes a novel metric framework to distinguish between AI systems that genuinely amplify human cognition and those that merely encourage dependency through delegation. Through agent-based simulations, the study demonstrates that positive collaborative gains are structurally unattainable in baseline configurations unless an explicit interaction term allows retained human capability to directly contribute to hybrid outcomes. These findings offer critical insights for designing sustainable human-AI architectures where capability preservation alone is insufficient without active human coupling.
Cognitive Amplification vs Cognitive Delegation in Human-AI Systems: A Metric Framework
arXiv:2603.18677v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.
Abstract:Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.
25 pages, 2 figures. Under review at Springer
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2603.18677 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2603.18677v3 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.18677 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 342 words
Related coverage

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
Assessing Information Ecosystems : How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid Threats
carnegieendowment.org · Aug 5, 2026

Presentation: Platform Engineering in the Age of AI
InfoQ · Sep 8, 2026