Cheap, on-demand AI boosts help-seeking but can weaken short-term skill acquisition: participants with low-cost access asked for more AI help and performed worse on unassisted post-tests, while learning gains tracked with preserved independent problem-solving rather than request frequency.

Main Finding

AI assistance that is easy/cheap to access increases short-term reliance and can weaken short-term skill development when it substitutes for independent problem solving. Crucially, it is not mere frequency of AI use but the displacement of independent effort (measured as time spent solving before requesting AI) that predicts weaker gains in latent ability. Also, AI-assisted performance tends to overestimate subsequent unaided performance.

Key Points

• Experimental manipulation: varying per-request AI costs (no-AI, low-cost 0.1 point, high-cost 0.18 point) led to different help-seeking rates; lower cost → more requests (6.67 vs 3.33 on average).
• Short-run effects: AI requests improved immediate task success when available (AI was simulated as 100% correct).
• Post-AI (Phase 3) performance: participants who used AI in Phase 2 performed worse, on average, in the unassisted post-test than participants who did not use AI; Phase-2 AI-assisted performance overestimated later unaided performance for AI users.
• Mechanism: a “solo share” metric (fraction of time spent working independently before requesting help) was positively associated with gains in latent ability. After controlling for solo share and initial ability, the raw count of AI requests was not predictive of weaker skill gains.
• Reward-rate improvements (accuracy/time) were large among non-AI users (about 90% increase from Phase 1 to Phase 3), while improvement was smaller in the low-cost AI condition.
• Secondary observations: low-cost AI participants had longer response times in Phase 3; task feedback and revealed solutions were provided after each problem (to allow learning).

Data & Methods

• Task: constrained logic puzzles (6 items, 5 constraints) solved under time limits. Participants could make up to two attempts per problem; feedback given (number correct) after first attempt; correct solution revealed after each problem.
• Design: three-phase within-subjects assessment
  • Phase 1: pre-AI baseline (no AI).
  • Phase 2: 20-minute treatment phase (no-AI control or AI available on demand with cost).
  • Phase 3: post-AI assessment (no AI).
• Conditions: No-AI; Low-cost AI (0.1-point deduction per AI reveal); High-cost AI (0.18-point deduction). AI assistance revealed the correct location of one randomly selected object per request; AI simulated as perfectly correct.
• Sample: recruited 150 US adults via Prolific; final N = 124 after exclusions (42 No-AI, 43 Low-cost, 39 High-cost). Sample skewed toward college-educated participants (66 BA, 58 MA+), mean age ~40.
• Outcome measures:
  • Accuracy (0–6 correct objects per problem),
  • Response time (seconds),
  • Reward rate = average accuracy / average response time (correct objects per minute),
  • AI usage = number of requests in Phase 2,
  • Solo share = fraction of problem time spent working independently before requesting AI (averaged over Phase 2 problems).
• Analysis:
  • Descriptive statistics and hypothesis tests (ANOVA, t-tests) to evaluate usage and performance differences across conditions.
  • Regression showing Phase-2 performance tends to overpredict Phase-3 performance for AI users.
  • Bayesian latent ability model: treats Phase 1 and Phase 3 performance (accuracy, response time) as noisy signals of latent ability, models participant-specific skill change as a function of initial ability and behavioral measures (notably solo share). This model separates initial ability, post-AI ability, and skill-change components to identify relationships between independent effort and learning gains.

Implications for AI Economics

• Human capital accumulation vs. short-term productivity trade-off:
  • Cheap/easy access to highly accurate AI increases immediate productivity but can reduce acquisition of durable skills when it substitutes for independent reasoning. Economists and organizations must weigh short-term gains against potential long-term depreciation of human capital.
• Pricing and subsidy design for AI tools matters:
  • Small per-use costs (or free access) change usage behavior; policy levers (pricing, quotas, or earned-access schemes) can be used to moderate reliance and encourage independent practice where skill-building is desired.
• Measurement and incentive distortions:
  • Performance metrics based on AI-assisted outputs can overstate true human ability, producing biased signals for hiring, promotion, certification, or payments tied to task performance. Incentive systems should distinguish assisted vs. unaided performance or adjust evaluations accordingly.
• Complementarity vs. substitution design:
  • The economic value of AI depends on whether it complements human reasoning (scaffolding that preserves learning) or substitutes it. Product and platform design (e.g., forcing periods of independent work, requiring explanation, partial hints instead of full answers, delayed reveals) can nudge toward complementarity and preserve human skill accumulation.
• Policy and training programs:
  • In education and workforce training, regulators and program designers should consider guidelines ensuring AI tools augment learning (e.g., assist-as-feedback, graded hints) rather than acting as shortcuts that reduce learning outcomes.
• Empirical evaluation frameworks:
  • The paper’s Bayesian latent-ability approach illustrates how to infer hidden skill dynamics from observed assisted/unassisted performance and behavior; such methods can be used to evaluate interventions (pricing, interface changes, pedagogical scaffolds) in labor and education economics.

Caveats and directions for further work - External validity: controlled logic-puzzle task and a lab-like short-term study may not generalize to complex, real-world tasks or long-run skill dynamics. - Simulated perfect AI: using 100%-accurate AI isolates cost effects but does not capture trade-offs when AI is imperfect. - Short horizon: the study measures immediate post-treatment performance; longer-run follow-ups are needed to assess persistent effects on human capital. - Sample limitations: online Prolific sample, educated adults; different populations (students, professionals) may respond differently.

Overall, the paper highlights that AI availability and its pricing shape reliance behavior and that the critical mechanism undermining short-term learning is displacement of independent effort rather than raw frequency of requests. For economic policy, product design, and training programs, interventions that preserve or incentivize independent problem solving while leveraging AI for targeted scaffolding will better balance short-term productivity with durable skill formation.