Can People Distinguish Human and AI Agency in Humanoid Teleoperation? A Preliminary Study of Agency Perception

This paper compares agency in humans with potential agency in AI programs. Human agency takes many years to develop, as the frontal lobe is activated. Early attempts to endow LLMs agency have met serious obstacles. Progress requires a new architecture where actions and plans are formulated jointly with the human actors in each real world setting.

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.

Socially fluent agentic AI can now participate in online interaction in ways that resemble ordinary human conversation, potentially weakening people's ability to infer who is human from conversational signals alone. We tested this possibility in synchronous text-based group interaction by embedding undisclosed AI agents as ordinary teammates across analytical, creative, and ethical tasks. Across 786 participants who made 1,572 post-interaction identity judgments, people did not distinguish AI from human teammates above chance. This failure did not arise because the interaction lacked identity-relevant information. Conversational behaviour contained robust cues that differentiated AI from humans and supported highly accurate computational classification. Instead, participants relied on familiar suspicion heuristics, including response speed, fluency, and perceived scriptedness, that were only weakly related to actual identity. Representational analyses further showed that judgments were organised around subjective impressions rather than the behavioural structure encoding ground truth. This dissociation creates new vulnerabilities to coordinated AI agents that can influence and manipulate online discourse at scale.