arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.15266

People over trust AI-generated medical responses and view them to be as valid as doctors, despite low accuracy

Shruthi Shekar·Pat Pataranutaporn·Chethan Sarabu·Guillermo A. Cecchi·Pattie Maes
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of how AI-generated medical responses are perceived and evaluated by non-experts. A total of 300 participants gave evaluations for medical responses that were either written by a medical doctor on an online healthcare platform, or generated by a large language model and labeled by physicians as having high or low accuracy. Results showed that participants could not effectively distinguish between AI-generated and Doctors' responses and demonstrated a preference for AI-generated responses, rating High Accuracy AI-generated responses as significantly more valid, trustworthy, and complete/satisfactory. Low Accuracy AI-generated responses on average performed very similar to Doctors' responses, if not more. Participants not only found these low-accuracy AI-generated responses to be valid, trustworthy, and complete/satisfactory but also indicated a high tendency to follow the potentially harmful medical advice and incorrectly seek unnecessary medical attention as a result of the response provided. This problematic reaction was comparable if not more to the reaction they displayed towards doctors' responses. This increased trust placed on inaccurate or inappropriate AI-generated medical advice can lead to misdiagnosis and harmful consequences for individuals seeking help. Further, participants were more trusting of High Accuracy AI-generated responses when told they were given by a doctor and experts rated AI-generated responses significantly higher when the source of the response was unknown. Both experts and non-experts exhibited bias, finding AI-generated responses to be more thorough and accurate than Doctors' responses but still valuing the involvement of a Doctor in the delivery of their medical advice. Ensuring AI systems are implemented with medical professionals should be the future of using AI for the delivery of medical advice.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shruthi Shekar, Pat Pataranutaporn, Chethan Sarabu, Guillermo A. Cecchi, Pattie Maes. 2024-08-11. People over trust AI-generated medical responses and view them to be as valid as doctors, despite low accuracy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15266

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC↗