Eve Fleisig
Publications
AI, Take the Wheel: What Drives Delegation and Trust in Human-Computer Cooperative Question Answering?
AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.
PluriHarms: Benchmarking the Full Spectrum of Human Judgments on AI Harm
Current AI safety frameworks, which often treat harmfulness as binary, lack the flexibility to handle borderline cases where humans meaningfully disagree. To build more pluralistic systems, it is essential to move beyond consensus and instead understand where and why disagreements arise. We introduce PluriHarms, a benchmark designed to systematically study human harm judgments across two key dimensions -- the harm axis (benign to harmful) and the agreement axis (agreement to disagreement). Our scalable framework generates prompts that capture diverse AI harms and human values while targeting cases with high disagreement rates, validated by human data. The benchmark includes 150 prompts with 15,000 ratings from 100 human annotators, enriched with demographic and psychological traits and prompt-level features of harmful actions, effects, and values. Our analyses show that prompts that relate to imminent risks and tangible harms amplify perceived harmfulness, while annotator traits (e.g., toxicity experience, education) and their interactions with prompt content explain systematic disagreement. We benchmark AI safety models and alignment methods on PluriHarms, finding that while personalization significantly improves prediction of human harm judgments, considerable room remains for future progress. By explicitly targeting value diversity and disagreement, our work provides a principled benchmark for moving beyond "one-size-fits-all" safety toward pluralistically safe AI.