AI help can both help and harm: whether recommendations improve decisions depends on how much new information the AI provides and on human misperception of shared evidence. When people neglect correlation between their own signals and AI advice, high informational overlap can make assistance backfire, even if the AI is capable.

Main Finding

The paper develops a Bayesian decision-theoretic model of human–AI interaction and shows that the realized effect of AI assistance decomposes into two forces: (i) the marginal informational value of the AI signal beyond the human’s information, and (ii) a behavioral penalty from how humans use the AI signal. Introducing a micro-founded measure of informational overlap and modeling human misspecification as correlation neglect, the authors characterize four interaction regimes—augmentation, impairment, complementarity, and automation—and show how overlap and AI capability jointly determine regime transitions. Key consequences include (a) non-monotone effects of revealing AI signals (informative signals can worsen outcomes under correlation neglect), (b) explicit closed-form thresholds separating regimes, and (c) that automation becomes inevitable as AI capability improves if humans do not learn to use AI better.

Key Points

• Framework and primitives
  • Decision-maker faces uncertain state Y. Human observes H; AI provides signal A. Human chooses decision d to minimize expected loss L(Y,d).
  • Value-of-information defined: v(S) = L0 − minδ E[L(Y, δ(S))], where L0 is no-information baseline.
  • Marginal value of AI to human: v(A | H) = v(A, H) − v(H). This is the relevant quantity for assistance (not standalone v(A)).
• Informational overlap
  • Overlap is micro-founded: both human and AI aggregate subsets of a common pool of primitive information sources.
  • Overlap coefficient measures the fraction of AI information redundant given the human’s information (range 0 = disjoint to 1 = fully redundant).
  • When AI draws from a fixed pool, overlap is approximately invariant to AI capability improvements, allowing independent variation of capability and overlap.
• Behavioral misspecification: correlation neglect
  • Humans treat AI recommendations as conditionally independent of their own information even when they share evidence, leading to double-counting of shared evidence.
  • Under correlation neglect the behavioral penalty may outweigh the marginal informational gain from AI.
• Regimes and phase transitions
  • Low overlap: AI access helps even imperfect humans; system moves smoothly from complementarity to automation as AI improves.
  • Intermediate overlap: weak AI can impair human performance (withholding AI is optimal); sufficiently capable AI yields complementarity; further improvements lead to automation.
  • High overlap: AI assistance is never preferred—system jumps from human-only (impairment when offered) to AI-only (automation) as AI improves.
  • The thresholds between these regimes admit closed-form expressions in the model’s primitives.
• Reversal of classical informativeness
  • For Bayesian-rational agents, revealing informative signals weakly improves decisions. Under correlation neglect this monotonicity can fail: revealing an informative AI signal can strictly worsen human decision quality.
• Policy-relevant insight
  • Human learning in using AI (reducing correlation neglect) is critical to prevent eventual automation and to expand regions where complementarity holds.

Data & Methods

• Analytical, theoretical approach (no empirical data introduced in the paper excerpt)
  • Bayesian decision-theoretic model: random variables (Y, H, A), loss function L, decision rule δ(H,A).
  • Value-of-information calculus used to define v(S) and marginal value v(A|H).
  • Micro-founded overlap: model primitives are pools of elementary information sources; H and A are aggregations of different subsets—overlap is share of AI’s information that is redundant given H.
  • Behavioral model: correlation neglect—human uses wrong likelihood by treating correlated signals as independent.
  • Derivation of regime boundaries and closed-form thresholds: analytical propositions and examples (including medical diagnosis contexts) illustrate extreme cases for complementarity/substitution.
• Methods yield closed-form comparative statics
  • Show how v(A|H) relates to v(A) and v(H) (can be arbitrarily larger or smaller).
  • Characterize phase diagrams of interaction regimes as functions of overlap and AI capability (v(A) or related precision parameter) under correlation neglect.
• Connections to literature
  • Builds on empirical findings of correlation neglect and on theoretical work on human-AI combination, learning-to-defer, and information design.
  • Contrasts with approaches that assume exogenous human decision rules or depend on joint signal distributions for optimization.

Implications for AI Economics

• Evaluating AI value for labor and productivity
  • Standalone benchmark metrics (v(A), e.g., model accuracy) are insufficient to assess economic value of AI as an assistive technology. The marginal value v(A|H) and overlap must be measured to predict labor productivity gains or losses.
  • Investments in AI that mostly improve redundant information (high overlap) may have little marginal value for skilled workers and can even harm outcomes if workers exhibit correlation neglect.
• Adoption, diffusion, and substitution vs complementarity
  • Overlap and behavioral frictions determine whether AI augments human labor, complements it (raising joint productivity), or substitutes for it (automation). This affects labor demand, wage pressure, and sectoral adoption patterns.
  • Intermediate-overlap settings imply an endogenous region where offering weak AI is harmful—firms or regulators may optimally withhold AI until capability crosses a threshold.
• Human capital and organizational strategy
  • Training that reduces correlation neglect (improves human inference/use of AI) is economically valuable: it expands complementarity regions and can delay or prevent automation-driven substitution.
  • Firms should invest not only in AI capability but also in human learning, interface design, and workflows that reduce double-counting and other misspecifications.
• Regulation and disclosure policy
  • Policymakers should consider informational overlap and behavioral biases when mandating AI disclosure or recommending human-in-the-loop designs. In some regimes disclosure can worsen outcomes.
  • Optimal regulation may differ by domain: for high-overlap domains, triage or automation with appropriate safeguards may outperform naïve assistance.
• Product design and market positioning
  • AI product designers should measure overlap with target users’ expertise and tailor outputs (e.g., expose different summaries or withhold redundant components) to avoid inducing harmful behavioral penalties.
  • Value capture and pricing: marginal value v(A|H) better predicts willingness-to-pay for assistive tools among expert users than standalone accuracy metrics.
• Empirical agenda for economists
  • Estimate overlap and degrees of correlation neglect empirically across domains (medicine, finance, customer service) to predict complementarity/substitution outcomes.
  • Incorporate overlap and behavioral penalties into structural models of adoption, labor supply, and productivity to improve forecasts of AI’s economic impact.
  • Evaluate interventions: human training, interface changes, calibrated disclosure, and triage policies to move systems toward complementarity and away from automation/substitution where socially undesirable.

Summary takeaway: Whether AI helps or harms humans depends not just on model accuracy but crucially on how much of the AI’s information is redundant with human expertise and on behavioral distortions (here, correlation neglect). Economic assessments, deployment decisions, and policy should therefore shift focus from standalone AI benchmarks to measurable overlap and to reducing human misspecification in using AI.