arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2601.04461cs.CLcs.HC
收藏

用户误判自己对AI写作辅助的偏好

Users Mispredict Their Own Preferences for AI Writing Assistance

Microsoft(微软公司);Massachusetts Institute of Technology(麻省理工学院)

Vivian Lai, Zana Buçinca, Nil-Jana Akpinar, Mo Houtti, Hyeonsu B. Kang, Kevin Chian, Namjoon Suh, Alex C. Williams

AI总结:

研究发现用户自我报告的偏好与实际行为存在显著差异,基于用户自我报告的AI写作系统效果不佳,而基于行为模式的系统表现更优。

摘要:

主动式AI写作助手需要预测用户何时需要草稿帮助,但缺乏对驱动偏好因素的实证理解。通过一项包含50名参与者进行750次成对比较的因子情景研究,我们发现组成性努力主导了决策(ρ=0.597),而紧迫性显示无预测能力(ρ≈0)。更关键的是,用户表现出显著的感知-行为差距:他们在自我报告中将紧迫性排在首位,尽管它是最弱的行为驱动因素,代表完全的偏好倒置。这种不一致有可衡量的后果。基于用户声明偏好的系统仅达到57.7%的准确率,甚至不如朴素基线,而使用行为模式的系统则显著更高,达到61.3%(p<0.05)。这些发现表明,依赖用户内省进行系统设计会主动误导优化,对主动式自然语言生成(NLG)系统有直接影响。

英文摘要:

Proactive AI writing assistants need to predict when users want drafting help, yet we lack empirical understanding of what drives preferences. Through a factorial vignette study with 50 participants making 750 pairwise comparisons, we find compositional effort dominates decisions ($ρ= 0.597$) while urgency shows no predictive power ($ρ\approx 0$). More critically, users exhibit a striking perception-behavior gap: they rank urgency first in self-reports despite it being the weakest behavioral driver, representing a complete preference inversion. This misalignment has measurable consequences. Systems designed from users' stated preferences achieve only 57.7\% accuracy, underperforming even naive baselines, while systems using behavioral patterns reach significantly higher 61.3\% ($p < 0.05$). These findings demonstrate that relying on user introspection for system design actively misleads optimization, with direct implications for proactive natural language generation (NLG) systems.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑