arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2503.15514

Superhuman Game AI Disclosure: Expertise and Context Moderate Effects on Trust and Fairness

Abstract

As artificial intelligence surpasses human performance in select tasks, disclosing superhuman capabilities poses distinct challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. However, the impact of such disclosures on diverse user attitudes and behaviors remains unclear, particularly concerning potential negative reactions like discouragement or overreliance. This paper investigates these effects by utilizing Persona Cards: a validated, standardized set of synthetic personas designed to simulate diverse user reactions and fairness perspectives. We conducted an ethics board-approved study (N=32), utilizing these personas to investigate how capability disclosure influenced behaviors with a superhuman game AI in competitive StarCraft II scenarios. Our results reveal transparency is double-edged: while disclosure could alleviate suspicion, it also provoked frustration and strategic defeatism among novices in cooperative scenarios, as well as overreliance in competitive contexts. Experienced and competitive players interpreted disclosure as confirmation of an unbeatable opponent, shifting to suboptimal goals. We release the Persona Cards Dataset, including profiles, prompts, interaction logs, and protocols, to foster reproducible research into human alignment AI design. This work demonstrates that transparency is not a cure-all; successfully leveraging disclosure to enhance trust and accountability requires careful tailoring to user characteristics, domain norms, and specific fairness objectives.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jaymari Chua, Chen Wang, Lina Yao. 2025-04-07. Superhuman Game AI Disclosure: Expertise and Context Moderate Effects on Trust and Fairness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15514

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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