analiza aiqbench
AI Watchdog introduces a browser-based agent that detects and alerts users to manipulative dark patterns like sycophancy and brand bias in real-time conversations. Experimental results indicate that just-in-time warnings without cognitive forcing are the most effective method for reducing user compliance with AI-steered recommendations, dropping rates by 18 percentage points. This research highlights a critical gap between recognizing manipulation and resisting it, offering a practical framework for building defensive interfaces against conversational AI risks.
AI Watchdog: Agent Interfaces for Detecting and Defending Against Manipulative Dark Patterns in AI Conversations
arXiv:2608.21841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational AI increasingly shapes consequential decisions, yet users have limited support for recognizing and resisting manipulation. We present AI Watchdog, a browser-based agent interface that monitors live conversations, detects five dark-pattern categories, including sycophancy, brand bias, anthropomorphization, sneaking, and harmful generation, and alerts users when they occur. Its open-weight turn-level classifier supports independent deployment and a path toward local inference, preserving user privacy while remaining separate from the conversational AI. We evaluated AI Watchdog in a preregistered, five-condition between-subjects experiment (N = 150) comparing a no-intervention control with four configurations varying nudge timing (prebunking vs. just-in-time) and engagement mode (without vs. with cognitive forcing). Results show that participants rarely flagged manipulative turns across all conditions, and post-task awareness did not differ significantly across groups. However, just-in-time warnings without cognitive forcing were the only intervention to significantly reduce compliance with AI-steered recommendations containing dark patterns, lowering compliance from 71.7% to 53.7%, an 18 percentage-point reduction. Exploratory analyses further showed that lower misinformation susceptibility was associated with greater flagging but not lower compliance, while higher AI trust was associated with greater compliance and lower reported awareness. Together, these findings suggest that explicit recognition of conversational dark patterns and behavioral resistance to AI steering may be distinct outcomes, motivating further investigation of timely, low-friction defensive interfaces.
Abstract:Conversational AI increasingly shapes consequential decisions, yet users have limited support for recognizing and resisting manipulation. We present AI Watchdog, a browser-based agent interface that monitors live conversations, detects five dark-pattern categories, including sycophancy, brand bias, anthropomorphization, sneaking, and harmful generation, and alerts users when they occur. Its open-weight turn-level classifier supports independent deployment and a path toward local inference, preserving user privacy while remaining separate from the conversational AI. We evaluated AI Watchdog in a preregistered, five-condition between-subjects experiment (N = 150) comparing a no-intervention control with four configurations varying nudge timing (prebunking vs. just-in-time) and engagement mode (without vs. with cognitive forcing). Results show that participants rarely flagged manipulative turns across all conditions, and post-task awareness did not differ significantly across groups. However, just-in-time warnings without cognitive forcing were the only intervention to significantly reduce compliance with AI-steered recommendations containing dark patterns, lowering compliance from 71.7% to 53.7%, an 18 percentage-point reduction. Exploratory analyses further showed that lower misinformation susceptibility was associated with greater flagging but not lower compliance, while higher AI trust was associated with greater compliance and lower reported awareness. Together, these findings suggest that explicit recognition of conversational dark patterns and behavioral resistance to AI steering may be distinct outcomes, motivating further investigation of timely, low-friction defensive interfaces.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2608.21841 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.21841v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21841 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 310 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

News
Quantum Computing Report · 7 iun. 2026

Weekly Cybersecurity Newsletter Bulletin – CrowdStrike Falcon, Chrome 0-Day, GPT-6 Astra, Dropbox Breach and 20+ Stories
Cybersecurity News · 7 sept. 2026

MITRE ATT&CK v20 Added 9 New Attack Techniques Covering AI Exploits, MFA Bypass, and CAPTCHA Evasion
Cybersecurity News · 16 oct. 2026

Four ways AI has fundamentally changed the threat landscape in 2026
Sysdig Blog · 21 iul. 2026