Understanding Operator Attitudes Toward AI-Supported Decision Making in Maritime Operations

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.

AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and consent. The final dataset included 56 analyzable responses from authors of 40 papers; closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, and 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers. This perceived added value translated into action: 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version. However, the authors did not treat the AI review as equivalent to a human review. They generally trusted it less than the human reviews and found human feedback clearer, even though 25.0% described at least some human reviews as not very useful. Reported problems with the AI review were usually limited: 51.8% reported minor inaccuracies, while 16.1% reported clearly incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant comments. Support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool: 96.4% said they would use AI as an internal review tool before future submissions, 89.3% preferred advance notice that AI would be used in review, and 76.8% favored explicit consent before use.