Asking more AI advisers makes crowd answers more reliable but also more visibly split — and if individual advisers are under 80% accurate, visible dissent eventually outpaces a correct majority, so disclosure and presentation of verdicts must be designed, not assumed.

Main Finding

When K independent AI advisers each have equal accuracy p > 1/2 on a binary question, two things both tend to certainty as K grows: (i) the majority is correct (Condorcet) and (ii) the user increasingly observes a visible split among advisers. These two probabilities converge at different exponential rates. The rates cross at adviser accuracy p = 4/5 (0.8). For p < 0.8 there exists a finite panel size K beyond which a visible split becomes at least as likely as a correct majority; for p ≥ 0.8 no finite K exists. Thus even “ideal” panels can be correct in aggregate yet commonly appear divided — and how often this happens is quantitatively predictable.

Key Points

• Base model assumptions: K independent advisers, equal per-item accuracy p with 1/2 < p < 1, binary verdicts, user observes only the vector of votes (not the ground truth).
• Visible dissent (minimal split): defined operationally as at least two dissenters on each side (the smallest split not attributable to a single random error). Closed-form probability: Pvis(K,p) = 1 − q^{K−1}(K p + q) − p^{K−1}(K q + p), where q = 1 − p. Under this definition Pvis → 1 for any fixed imperfect p as K → ∞.
• Aggregate reliability (Pagg, majority correctness) also → 1 as K → ∞ (classical Condorcet result). Both approach 1 exponentially in K but with different exponents.
• Comparison of exponential rates yields a sharp boundary at p = 4/5:
  • If p > 0.8, Pagg increases faster and always dominates Pvis (no finite K*).
  • If p < 0.8, Pvis increases faster and there is a finite disclosure reference scale K(p) where Pvis ≥ Pagg for the first time (examples: K(0.6)=6, K(0.7)=14, K(0.75)=32; K* diverges as p → 0.8).
• The expected fraction of dissenters m → q (the advisers’ error rate) as K grows. So even when majority is almost certainly correct, users will typically see roughly q fraction dissenting.
• Dependence, unequal accuracy, multi-class outputs, and real-model correlations change quantitative outcomes but do not remove the structural point: adding advisers increases the visibility of dissent. Correlation can reduce observed split rates but can greatly increase probability of unanimous-but-wrong panels (“false consensus”).
• The paper connects this observable split to three user-side concepts:
• Predictive multiplicity (probability any disagreement occurs).
• Reconciliation load (cognitive/work cost to reconcile conflicting advice, increasing with the dissenting fraction).
• Reliance miscalibration (under- or over-trust driven by observing splits or apparent unanimity). The model provides explicit, testable predictions for these stimuli; the behavioral responses remain empirical questions (the authors posit a monotone-response hypothesis).

Data & Methods

• Analytic probability model: binomial voting model (K independent Bernoulli(p) votes) with closed-form expressions for Pvis and standard expressions for Pagg (majority correctness). Derivations use binomial sums and large-deviation / error-exponent comparisons.
• Asymptotic analysis: compare exponential convergence rates of Pvis complement and majority error (rate expressions give the 4/5 crossover).
• Numerical examples: compute Pvis and Pagg across (K,p) to illustrate crossovers and K values. Provide example K values for representative p.
• Robustness checks and extensions (sketched): generalizing minimum-split threshold to a fixed fraction r; simulations of correlated votes using copula models to show dependence effects (dissent deficit, inflated all-wrong probabilities).
• Conceptual linkage to literatures: predictive multiplicity, jury-split models, ensemble diversity, and disagreement-based uncertainty quantification.

Implications for AI Economics

• Two economically relevant decisions: (a) how many advisers to consult (K), and (b) how to present/interpret their verdicts. Both have welfare and cost trade-offs.
• Marginal benefits vs marginal costs:
  • Benefit: increasing K reduces majority error at an exponential rate (classical ensemble benefit).
  • Cost: increasing K raises the probability of visible dissent and thus expected reconciliation costs (time, expert review, user uncertainty), potential reductions in adoption or reliance, and administrative burdens. These costs can dominate behavioral outcomes for p < 0.8 once K exceeds K*.
• Disclosure and product design economics:
  • Presentation choice (show vote distribution vs only majority) affects perceived uncertainty and trust. The paper supplies a quantitative benchmark (K*(p), the 4/5 boundary) to guide when fuller disclosure is likely to produce a majority-correct panel that nonetheless appears divided.
  • Platforms can use the independence baseline to detect residual dependence (“dissent deficit”) and to audit ensemble behavior; deviations can indicate model similarity/monoculture risks that have market and systemic implications.
• Pricing and market structure:
  • If querying advisers is costly, optimal K must account for both reduced prediction error and increased reconciliation/interpretation costs. A cost-benefit framework could price additional model queries or structure tiered offerings (e.g., small-K “single-shot” products vs larger-K “panel” products with explicit reconciliation services).
  • Incentives for diversity: regulators or buyers might subsidize or require model diversity (reduces correlated failures) but diversity also changes perceived disagreement rates — design and disclosure policy must balance these effects.
• Regulation and consumer protection:
  • The results argue for policy attention to how ensemble outputs are disclosed: showing raw vote splits can be informative but may lower apparent reliability; hiding splits risks over-trust when unanimity is actually spurious (false consensus). Disclosure rules might condition presentation on estimated p and K relative to K*(p).
  • Audit metrics: the independence baseline and the Pvis formula provide testable metrics for auditors to flag suspiciously low or high disagreement relative to what independent equal-accuracy advisers would show.
• Strategic behavior and platform competition:
  • Firms might optimize K and presentation to affect customer perceptions (e.g., fewer advisers or aggregated summaries to reduce visible dissent). Regulators should be aware of incentives to understate disagreement.
  • Standardization (monoculture) can reduce user-perceived splits but raises systemic risk of correlated failures; market incentives (cost, data access) can push toward or away from such monocultures.
• Empirical agenda for AI economics:
  • Measure per-item p and user behavioral responses to split stimuli to estimate reconciliation costs, changes in reliance, and welfare outcomes.
  • Calibrate K* for realistic adviser accuracies and query costs to derive policy and pricing guidelines.

Caveats and open limitations - Core results rely on equal-accuracy, independence, and binary outputs; real advisers violate these assumptions. The paper treats the base model as a useful null baseline and documents qualitatively how dependence and heterogeneity change conclusions (notably by inflating false-consensus risks). - Behavioral responses to splits (reconciliation load, trust updating) are not modeled endogenously — these require empirical study to translate split probabilities into economic welfare impacts. - Multi-class outputs, cost per query, and strategic model selection are natural extensions for economic modeling.

Bottom line Adding independent advisers increases aggregate accuracy but also makes visible disagreement more likely; below adviser accuracy p = 0.8, a modest panel size suffices for visible dissent to be as likely as a correct majority. Designers, platform managers, and regulators should therefore treat the number of advisers and the mode of disclosure as separate, economically consequential choices; the paper provides explicit formulas and reference scales (p = 4/5 and K*(p)) to guide those decisions and to form audit baselines.