Beyond the Steeper Curve: AI-Mediated Metacognitive Decoupling and the Limits of the Dunning-Kruger Metaphor

Confidence-weighted routing, selective abstention, and ensemble weighting all assume that a model's stated confidence is informative about its capability on the question being asked. They presume functional metacognition, the capacity to assess one's own capabilities, without exercising them. Aggregate calibration is well studied, with mixed results, but the underlying structure of elicited confidence is less well understood. We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) across six benchmarks using tetrachoric factor analysis paired with pairwise calibration, asking whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance. On factual recall and information retrieval benchmarks the cross-model confidence matrix is approximately rank-one and a single dominant factor captures most of the latent variance. Models retrieving facts share an item-level difficulty axis and differ mainly in their decision thresholds along it. Across all benchmarks the relationship between confidence and performance collapses once items that all models agree on are removed. Inter-model pairwise calibration is small even where statistically significant, and what remains shrinks to nothing once base-rate differences along the shared factor are controlled for. Mathematical reasoning is the apparent exception, but this turns out to be a confound where reasoning models answer questions about their confidence by trying to solve them in their chain of thought, bypassing the sub-symbolic self-knowledge we seek to measure. We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.

Verbalized confidence, in which LLMs report a numerical certainty score, is widely used to estimate uncertainty in black-box settings, yet the confidence scale itself (typically 0--100) is rarely examined. We show that this design choice is not neutral. Across six LLMs and three datasets, verbalized confidence is heavily discretized, with more than 78% of responses concentrating on just three round-number values. To investigate this phenomenon, we systematically manipulate confidence scales along three dimensions: granularity, boundary placement, and range regularity, and evaluate metacognitive sensitivity using $meta\text{-}d'$. We find that a 0--20 scale consistently improves metacognitive efficiency over the standard 0--100 format, while boundary compression degrades performance and round-number preferences persist even under irregular ranges. These results demonstrate that confidence scale design directly affects the quality of verbalized uncertainty and should be treated as a first-class experimental variable in LLM evaluation.

Cognitive offloading to AI can reduce opportunities to practice skills, creating risks of deskilling. However, it remains unclear how to prevent deskilling without restricting access to AI. Here, we design two interventions to reduce offloading decisions: (1) metacognitive feedback that makes the implications of offloading for users explicit, and (2) an effort-based reward that incentivizes less extensive LLM assistance. We test both in a preregistered online experiment ($N = 704$) with a 2$\times$2 design and a no-AI control. The task was to practice fraction arithmetic with an LLM-based assistant that provided solutions only on explicit request, followed by an unaided test. Metacognitive feedback reduced answer offloading (OR $= 0.47$) and improved test performance (OR $= 1.51$). We found no evidence that the reward affected either outcome. Our results identify metacognitive feedback as a promising design choice to reduce cognitive offloading.