aiqbench analysis
This study investigates the long-term impact of LLM advisors on complex problem-solving, revealing that while AI support boosts confidence and reduces effort during active use, it significantly enhances independent performance only when users actively engage with and alter recommendations rather than passively accepting defaults. The findings suggest that for AI to leave a lasting positive legacy in decision-making tasks, evaluation metrics must prioritize the development of user understanding and autonomous capability alongside raw performance gains.
When the AI Leaves the Tailorshop: Measuring What an LLM Advisor Leaves Behind in Complex Problem Solving
arXiv:2610.00163v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Complex problem solving depends on acting effectively and understanding how a system works. AI advice may support these outcomes unequally. Two preregistered experiments compared participants managing a simulated clothing factory with and without an LLM advisor. Across studies, AI-supported participants reported greater confidence and understanding with less effort. In the first study (N=200), assistance increased company value but produced no detectable prediction-accuracy difference. After withdrawal, previously supported participants outperformed controls when decisions were scored against repeating previous choices, but not default settings. Within the AI-supported group, more frequent recommendation alterations predicted better unaided performance. In the second study (N=198), AI-supported participants went bankrupt less often and showed a small knowledge advantage in the registered analysis, largely associated with remaining solvent. More frequent recommendation alterations predicted higher knowledge within the AI-supported group. Applied HAI evaluation should assess users' understanding and independent capability alongside the performance achieved with AI support.
Abstract:Complex problem solving depends on acting effectively and understanding how a system works. AI advice may support these outcomes unequally. Two preregistered experiments compared participants managing a simulated clothing factory with and without an LLM advisor. Across studies, AI-supported participants reported greater confidence and understanding with less effort. In the first study (N=200), assistance increased company value but produced no detectable prediction-accuracy difference. After withdrawal, previously supported participants outperformed controls when decisions were scored against repeating previous choices, but not default settings. Within the AI-supported group, more frequent recommendation alterations predicted better unaided performance. In the second study (N=198), AI-supported participants went bankrupt less often and showed a small knowledge advantage in the registered analysis, largely associated with remaining solvent. More frequent recommendation alterations predicted higher knowledge within the AI-supported group. Applied HAI evaluation should assess users' understanding and independent capability alongside the performance achieved with AI support.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.00163 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2610.00163v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00163 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 245 words
Related coverage
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026