AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized
Summary
This research paper investigates how AI advice reduces people's willingness to express uncertainty, even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized, altering metacognitive thresholds.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/16/26, 04:24 AM
# AI advice suppresses people's willingness to say "I don't know", even when the advice is wrong and accuracy is incentivized Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13562](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13562) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.13562) > Abstract:Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question\. In five experiments \(N = 3,132; four preregistered, one direct replication\), participants answered difficult questions and could always decline to respond\. We engineered the questions so that AI advice was wrong, separating AI use from its accuracy\. Merely having access to AI nearly eliminated participants' willingness to suspend judgment, and this held whether the advice was actively requested or simply displayed\. Consequently, participants answered more questions but were correct about a third as often as when AI was unavailable\-yet their confidence nearly doubled\. Incentivizing accuracy and penalizing inaccuracy led participants to seek and follow AI advice less, answer more accurately, and suspend judgment more often, though still far less than when AI was unavailable\. As AI suggestions grow ubiquitous and unsolicited, they may not simply affect answer accuracy; they may even alter the metacognitive threshold at which people decide whether they know enough to answer\. ## Submission history From: Valerio Capraro \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/390e95c1/2607.13562)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:04:14 UTC \(1,513 KB\)
Similar Articles
The most important AI failure may be false confidence, not wrong answers
This article argues that the most dangerous AI failures stem not from wrong answers but from systems acting with false confidence based on incomplete data, outdated context, or bad assumptions, suggesting that AI evaluation should prioritize handling uncertainty over raw intelligence.
When AI Feels “Too Certain”
This article explores the psychological phenomenon where users distrust AI not because it's wrong, but because its tone of certainty mismatches their own internal uncertainty, applying Expectancy Violation Theory to explain the friction.
the problem isnt that AI is wrong, its that it's wrong so confidently
Discusses the issue of AI models producing incorrect answers with high confidence, highlighting the problem of overconfidence in AI outputs.
Robust Human-AI Complementarity under Uncertainty
This paper investigates how uncertainty about AI prediction quality affects human decision makers' ability to benefit from complementary information, finding that negative error correlation between human and AI predictions enables robust improvement strategies.
AI, Take the Wheel: What Drives Delegation and Trust in Human-Computer Cooperative Question Answering?
This paper studies how humans decide when to delegate to AI and when to adopt AI suggestions in cooperative question answering, finding that confirmation bias drives suboptimal trust decisions such as under-reliance on correct AI outputs.