Tobias Gerstenberg
Famous AuthorPublications
AI Assistants Overassist
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems. While guidance from AI assistants can scaffold thinking and foster learning, such benefits depend on how they help--for instance, intervening too early or too frequently may hinder true learning and cognitive engagement. Yet how AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Int-Bench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating LLM interventions during learning. Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene. Across three domains--code debugging, mathematics, and brain teasers--we evaluate LLM teachers on the frequency and timing of interventions, as well as their impact on both immediate task success and generalization to new problems. We also compare LLMs to humans, finding that LLMs intervene more frequently and earlier than humans. Moreover, in contrast to humans, they tend to provide complete solutions rather than targeted hints. These findings suggest that current LLM assistants often optimize for short-term success rather than supporting the reasoning processes needed for deeper learning and long-term success.
From Retrieving Information to Reasoning with AI: Exploring Different Interaction Modalities to Support Human-AI Coordination in Clinical Decision-Making
LLMs are popular among clinicians for decision-support because of simple text-based interaction. However, their impact on clinicians' performance is ambiguous. Not knowing how clinicians use this new technology and how they compare it to traditional clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) restricts designing novel mechanisms that overcome existing tool limitations and enhance performance and experience. This qualitative study examines how clinicians (n=12) perceive different interaction modalities (text-based conversation with LLMs, interactive and static UI, and voice) for decision-support. In open-ended use of LLM-based tools, our participants took a tool-centric approach using them for information retrieval and confirmation with simple prompts instead of use as active deliberation partners that can handle complex questions. Critical engagement emerged with changes to the interaction setup. Engagement also differed with individual cognitive styles. Lastly, benefits and drawbacks of interaction with text, voice and traditional UIs for clinical decision-support show the lack of a one-size-fits-all interaction modality.