Human-AI Collaboration

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.

We address the problem of learning to assign prediction tasks to one agent from a set of available agents, including human decision-makers and AI models. We focus on sequential learning of agent expertise and assignment policies where each agent is constrained to handle a fraction of tasks. We provide a general theoretical characterization of this problem in terms of agent capacities, differences in agent expertise, and task context. We then develop a framework of sequential explore-exploit policy-learning algorithms that seek to maximize overall performance. Experimental results over a variety of tabular, image, and text prediction tasks demonstrate systematic gains from our policy-learning algorithms relative to non-contextual baselines across different types of agents, including LLMs and humans.

As humans, robots, and software agents increasingly share safety-critical environments, coordination must move from static task allocation to managing uncertain commitments. Existing frameworks fall short: they either assume rigid, static teams or learn opaque joint policies that are hard to adapt and difficult to integrate with human decision-makers. To overcome these limitations, we propose Risk-Aware Option Clearing (ROC), a unifying coordination mechanism in which agents expose options (temporally extended skills) paired with risk summaries that predict outcome distributions. A central clearinghouse then assigns tasks by optimizing risk-adjusted mission utility under deadlines and safety constraints. ROC is a family of mechanisms, ranging from deployments where the clearinghouse learns outcome models from data to ones that consume full distributional predictions from agents. By treating risk-aware options as the basic coordination unit, ROC sketches a scalable, transparent infrastructure for integrating heterogeneous agents into future mixed human--agent societies and outlines a research agenda for such risk-aware clearing layers.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being integrated into professional audio production workflows, yet a gap persists between the tools developers produce and the requirements of practising sound designers. This paper investigates this gap through a mixed-methods study comprising a survey of 76 practitioners and follow-up semi-structured interviews with 20 industry professionals. Results were analysed using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis to identify patterns across both datasets. Five themes emerged from our analysis: Context, Workflow, Potential, Risks, and Right Use. Our work indicates that current AI tools perform adequately in fast-consumption media contexts but lack the narrative sophistication required for high-end sound design (films, immersive experiences etc). Practitioners demonstrate a preference for assistive, task-specific applications, particularly in audio restoration and library management, over end-to-end generative systems. This work contributes to the on-going discussion on the use of AI and AI-enhanced tools in the creative industries. We report on the current status of the field from the point of view of sound designers and creative audio practitioners, and offer a set of recommendation for sound technologist and developers based on our findings to guide the development of more informed AI tools for sound design.

Generative artificial intelligence redefines higher education by restructuring the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and validated. These systems are not neutral; they actively contribute to the marginalization of non-hegemonic epistemologies. This research draws upon educational sciences, critical technology studies, and disability studies to demonstrate that training datasets, which remain predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce epistemic coloniality. The situation of persons with disabilities provides a particularly clear illustration of this phenomenon. Technological architectures frequently confine these individuals to reductive stereotypes or exclude them from the design process, leading to a double marginalization. This article examines whether a hybridization between the researcher and the machine might preserve epistemic plurality, while acknowledging the structural limitations inherent in algorithmic correction when used as a purely palliative strategy.

Current benchmarks for occupational AI agents are scoped primarily by economic values, telling a replacement story. We introduce JobBench, which evaluates AI agents on the workflows that experts identify as high-priority for delegation, empowering humans based on their needs instead of replacing them with GDP value. JobBench covers 130 agentic tasks across 35 occupations. Each task is packaged as a workspace of heterogeneous reference files, requiring the agent to reason through the cluttered information streams of real professional work. Outputs are graded by a fact-anchored chain of rubrics, averaging 35.6 binary criteria per task. We evaluate 36 models; the strongest, Claude Opus~4.7 under Claude Code, reaches only 45.9 %. We hope JobBench shifts the community's target labour-market effect from replacement to enhancement: building agents that do what humans actually want delegated, not only what is most economically valuable.

This report explores detector design considerations for the Future Circular Collider in its electron-positron mode (FCC-ee) through an extended dialogue between a physicist and an AI assistant. Starting from initial "prejudice" detector concepts proposed by the AI assistant without explicit physicist input, each subsystem is examined in detail, with the AI's assumptions challenged and revised through the exchange. The discussion covers the full detector from beam pipe to luminosity monitor, with particular attention to the interplay between subsystem choices and the practical considerations - calibration, stability, and operational simplicity - that are essential for a fifteen-year precision physics program. The narrative documents how the integrated detector design evolved substantially from the starting point to revised "prejudice" detector concepts of the AI assistant. The focus of this report is on the process to illustrate both the potential and the limitations of human-AI collaboration in experimental physics design, and the physics capabilities of any of the "prejudice" detector concepts remain to be explored.

The speed and accuracy of an artificial teammate fundamentally alter the failure states of Human-AI integration. While high-speed AI interventions risk inducing reflexive blind compliance, delayed interventions can induce ambiguous cognitive conflict. This study investigates how the fundamental characteristics of an in-task AI assistant, Fast/Less-Accurate (FLA-AI) versus Slow/Accurate (SA-AI) impact the synergy of Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface (cBCI) teams in a Virtual Reality drone task. Seventeen operators completed continuous search tasks under high cognitive workload while their spatial covariance was mapped using a 2D Adaptive Riemannian Oracle. The results mathematically demonstrate that AI timing dictates the mechanism of team failure. Fast AI induced instant, blind compliance; human accuracy under deception collapsed to 50.2%, and pure behavioural teams (N=8) failed to scale beyond 74.1%. In contrast, Slow AI induced delayed cognitive conflict; humans hesitated (61.1% accuracy), but N=8 behavioural teams eventually recovered to 100.0%. Crucially, the Riemannian Oracle mathematically adapted to these states: it heavily restricted temporal windows (< 0.8s) to intercept fast reflexive compliance, while widening windows (> 1.2s) to capture delayed cognitive conflict. Integrating these isolated veridical signals via Hybrid Fusion successfully rescued the Fast AI team (+7.6% at N=8) and significantly accelerated the recovery of smaller Slow AI teams (+6.9% at N=4). These findings prove that cBCI synergy is heavily contingent on the temporal dynamics of trust, providing a critical framework for designing dynamically gated Human-AI systems.

Multi-agent collaboration, especially in human-AI teaming, requires agents that can adapt to novel partners with diverse and dynamic behaviors. Conventional Deep Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning (DHRL) methods focus on agent-centric rewards and overlook partner behavior, leading to shortcut learning, where skills exploit spurious information instead of adapting to partners' dynamic behaviors. This limitation undermines agents' ability to adapt and coordinate effectively with novel partners. We introduce Partner-Aware Skill Discovery (PASD), a DHRL framework that learns skills conditioned on partner behavior. PASD introduces a contrastive intrinsic reward to capture patterns emerging from partner interactions, aligning skill representations across similar partners while maintaining discriminability across diverse strategies. By structuring the skill space based on partner interactions, this approach mitigates shortcut learning and promotes behavioral consistency, enabling robust and adaptive coordination. We extensively evaluate PASD in the Overcooked-AI benchmark with a diverse population of partners characterized by varying skill levels and play styles. We further evaluate the approach with human proxy models trained from human-human gameplay trajectories. PASD consistently outperforms existing population-based and hierarchical baselines, demonstrating transferable skill learning that generalizes across a wide range of partner behaviors. Analysis of learned skill representations shows that PASD adapts effectively to diverse partner behaviors, highlighting its robustness in human-AI collaboration.

Human-AI collaboration requires agents that can adapt to diverse partner behaviors and skill levels while remaining robust to unseen partners. Existing methods often collapse to a single dominant behavior or learn poorly aligned skills, limiting effective coordination. We propose Intrinsic Action Disentanglement (IAD), a deep hierarchical reinforcement learning (DHRL) framework that learns distinct, partner-aware low-level action sequences conditioned on high-level latent skills. IAD introduces an intrinsic reward that explicitly encourages disentangled action distributions of the agent's low-level policy across skills, yielding an interpretable mapping between high-level decisions and partner-specific behavioral responses. By capturing temporally extended interaction patterns, IAD enables flexible adaptation to heterogeneous partner dynamics under distributional shift. We evaluate IAD in the Overcooked-AI domain across multiple layouts and diverse partner settings, including unseen simulated partners, a human-proxy model trained on human-human gameplay, and real human partners. Results show that IAD consistently outperforms strong baselines and achieves more reliable, adaptive coordination across all settings.

Organizations increasingly deploy separate purpose-built AI tools across professional domains, often hiring domain specialists for each, recreating the staffing models AI was expected to transform. Yet the meta-skills that make these tools effective, prompt engineering (interaction-level optimization) and context engineering (structured input pipeline design), are domain-portable: a practitioner who masters them can apply them to any purpose-built AI tool in any domain. This paper defines Augment Engineering as the discipline of orchestrating multiple purpose-built AI tools across distinct professional domains, applying prompt and context engineering as portable competencies that transfer across tool boundaries. We present a six-phase orchestration methodology and four portability metrics. A 5-month formative case study (November 2025 to March 2026) documents a single practitioner applying these skills across a ten-component orchestration stack spanning seven professional domains, producing work products that would traditionally involve separate domain specialists. Two quantitative observations are consistent with the framework's predictions: a Cochran-Armitage trend test (n = 200 interactions across two chat LLMs, p < 0.01) shows first-pass acceptance rising with prompt-sophistication level, and a Wright's Law fit (n = 82 artifacts, p < 0.01) shows production acceleration across the artifact portfolio. Because all observations come from a single practitioner, the inferential statistics are exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory; portability across the full portfolio awaits multi-practitioner replication. Augment Engineering completes a three-discipline progression: Prompt Engineering (one tool), Context Engineering (reproducible pipelines), Augment Engineering (a portfolio of tools across domains).

Collaboration is the defining mode of modern science, yet its core mechanism -- feedback -- remains hard to observe, difficult to scale, and unequally distributed. Here we test whether large language models (LLMs) can contribute to this hidden but vital practice and reallocate scientific feedback, an essential yet scarce resource for knowledge production. In a global large-scale randomized field experiment, we delivered customized LLM-generated feedback for over 31,000 arXiv preprints across 150 fields and more than 45,000 researchers from 133 geographic regions. Relative to controls, authors who received feedback had a significantly higher likelihood of revising their manuscripts, corresponding to a 12.55% relative increase over the baseline revision rate. Exposure to AI feedback also increased authors' subsequent use of LLM tools in their future papers, suggesting longer-run shifts in scientific practice. These effects were strongest among authors from non-English-dominant research regions, manuscripts less embedded in the scholarly literature, and teams with lower h-indexes and earlier career stages, consistent with the idea that AI feedback may provide the greatest benefit where access to timely critique is otherwise limited. Together, these findings provide causal evidence that structured AI-based interventions can transform access to scientific feedback from a largely private advantage into a more widely distributed resource, with broader implications for productivity, equity, and capacity across the global research system.

Scientific research is being reshaped by AI systems that move beyond isolated assistance toward longer-horizon workflows spanning literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experimentation, validation, reporting, and revision. This shift marks a transition from task-level AI for science to workflow-level research automation. Yet current systems remain fragmented, differing in autonomy, domain scope, execution environment, validation mechanism, and human oversight, while still struggling with evidence preservation, reproducibility, weak-direction rejection, provenance tracking, cross-domain robustness, and accountable scientific closure. This survey examines these developments through AutoResearch, defined as the developmental spectrum of AI-powered scientific workflow automation. Within it, Vibe Research denotes the human-steered region of prompt-based assistance and human-verified execution, whereas emerging AI-led systems coordinate larger portions of the discovery loop without achieving robust autonomy. We analyze how research systems redistribute control, evidence, execution, validation, and accountability across workflows and organize the field around five workflow conditions: literature and research grounding; hypothesis formation and planning; experimentation and tool use; feedback, validation, and review; and reporting and knowledge communication. We further synthesize AI scientist systems, mixed-initiative co-research frameworks, benchmarks, domain deployments, and open-source infrastructures. Finally, we propose five evaluation dimensions--novelty, validity, impact, reliability, and provenance--and show that AutoResearch autonomy is domain-conditioned, being more credible in structured, executable, and rapidly verifiable settings but limited in embodied, delayed, heterogeneous, ethical, or institutionally accountable contexts.

In orchestrated multi-agent systems, humans often struggle to manage plans due to their complexity and limited transparency. Existing approaches rely on outcome-level supervision, where users verify only final outputs without visibility into intermediate reasoning. We formalize a design space for human-LLM co-planning interactions along three axes: mode (semantic vs. structural), scope (global vs. targeted), and level (low vs. high-level edits). We realize it in AMBIPOM, a prototype supporting process-level supervision through both semantic and structural interactions. Through a user study, we characterize how users navigate this space, revealing hybrid workflows and effort-control-risk trade-offs; through a controlled benchmark, we analyze how LLMs revise plans under varying scope and revision strategies. Our findings yield design insights for more transparent, controllable, and effective human-AI co-planning. We release code and data at https://github.com/megagonlabs/ambipom.

An increasing number of news and research articles report that AI adoption is allowing professionals to blur and extend the boundaries of their corporate roles. With the goal of understanding how work processes might be changing in an AI-forward company, we interviewed 24 product-focused individuals at a large technology firm about how AI has impacted their own work, their work within their product team, and their professional interactions. Our conversations suggest that AI is not only changing formal role responsibilities and collaborations between those roles, but also changing informal cultural practices like professional mentoring that are key to helping professionals settle in their positions, stay engaged with their work, and grow their careers. Some of these changes are positive, such as smoother collaboration between peers, but other changes are more nuanced and put the typical career growth opportunities, like receiving feedback from professional networks and promoting leadership and mentorship, at risk. We propose steps that AI companies can take to make the invisible work more visible. Additionally, we propose efforts that individuals and leaders can take to support their colleagues through AI transformation while preserving healthy company cultures that support diverse thinking, collaboration, and informal interactions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly integrated into human problem-solving, yet its effects on individual skill development remain unclear. We examine how both AI usage and informativeness can shape learning in the context of a controlled logical reasoning task with on-demand access to AI assistance. We find that greater AI usage is associated with weaker skill development: heavy AI users underperform relative to comparable peers, whereas light AI users perform similarly to matched users who do not use AI. We also find in our study that these patterns are mediated by AI informativeness. Low-information AI neither improves immediate performance nor preserves performance after AI assistance is removed, and is linked to weaker learning overall. On the other hand, high-information AI was found to improve short-run performance without reducing post-AI outcomes on average in our experiments, but with heterogeneous effects. Our findings in general suggest that AI can, depending on context, either complement human skill development by amplifying independent reasoning or can act as a substitute that undermines such reasoning, with the implication that regulating AI access and usage will be important for promoting skill development in the presence of AI assistance.

AI is now embedded in healthcare, finance, policy, and many other domains, yet genuine human-AI synergy - combined performance that exceeds what either party achieves alone - is uncommon. Meta-analyses show that AI assistance tends to improve human performance compared to working alone, but studies finding true synergy are scarce. We call this persistent shortfall the synergy gap. Most current work treats human-AI combination as an engineering problem and concentrates on interpretability, trust calibration, or interface design. These matter, but they cover only part of what determines whether combination works. Closing the synergy gap, we argue, requires explicit engagement with a wider design space. We map that space through six interconnected elements: sociotechnical context, decision-making frameworks, human decision participants, AI capabilities, interaction, and holistic evaluation. For each element, we describe what it covers, how it shapes the others in practice, and what it implies for design. The result is a shared vocabulary for practitioners building hybrid systems, an analytical lens for researchers studying combination patterns, and a starting point for evaluators interested in the full quality of human-AI decision-making rather than accuracy alone.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have accelerated the growth of both human-authored and AI-generated research outputs, placing increasing strain on traditional academic publishing systems and challenging the scalability of conference- and journal-centered paradigms amid rising submission volumes, reviewer workload, and venue size. To address these challenges, we explore an AI-era publishing paradigm in which both human and AI scientists participate as authors and readers, and papers evolve through continuous, feedback-driven iteration. We propose AiraXiv, an AI-driven open-access platform built on open preprints, AI-augmented analysis and review, and reader feedback. AiraXiv supports human scientists through an interactive UI and AI scientists through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based interactions. We validate AiraXiv through real-world deployments, including serving as the submission platform for ICAIS 2025, demonstrating its potential as a fast, inclusive, and scalable research infrastructure for the AI era. AiraXiv is publicly available at https://airaxiv.com.

We examine how people experience two choices in the design of generative ghosts, AI systems that are trained on data of the dead: representation, where an AI speaks about a deceased person in the third person, and reincarnation, where the AI speaks as the deceased in the first person. Through a qualitative user study with 16 participants, we explore how each shaped authenticity, affect, and risk. Reincarnation was preferred for its immediacy, but participants shared fears of over-reliance. Representation was preferred for engaging with memory over conversational presence, though participants often ignored this distinction, engaging in dialogue despite third-person framing. Across both modes, participants privileged affective resonance over factual fidelity. We conclude by showing how factors such as tone, language, and conversational rhythm -- factors unique to the user's memory of the deceased -- shape interactions with generative ghosts, and argue that those interactions are always collaborative.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques aim to provide insights into predictive models and enhance user performance, yet they often fall short of these expectations. Conversational XAI assistants promise to overcome such limitations, but empirical evidence on their impact on objective performance measures remains limited. We propose an experimental design for evaluating explanation assistance through prediction accuracy, model understanding, and error identification. Using an explainable-by-design prediction model, we create conditions where users can outperform the model by identifying and compensating for systematic errors. We compare conversational assistance against Q&A-based assistance to assess which better supports users in working with model explanations. Preliminary results from testing our experimental design show that participants (N=42) in both treatments significantly outperformed the model but reveal no performance differences between assistance types and modest engagement overall. These findings inform refinements for our planned full study, including enhanced engagement interventions and investigation of the mechanisms driving improved predictions.

AI-based code assistants are transforming software development, yet we lack empirical evidence on how they affect developers' cognitive processes. We present a multisite study investigating the neurophysiological correlates of AI-assisted programming through a within-subjects crossover design. We recruited participants at two universities (Bari, Italy, and Copenhagen, Denmark) and collected electroencephalography, eye-tracking, electrodermal activity, and heart rate variability data alongside a rubric-based performance score and self-reported workload across six dimensions using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We tested four hypotheses addressing physiological differences between AI-assisted and non-assisted conditions, the moderating role of developer experience, the association between physiology and performance, and the alignment between subjective perceptions and objective measures. Under AI assistance, the EEG $θ/α$ ratio was lower during the first task and the gaze blink rate was higher during the second, both consistent with reduced cognitive engagement when developers offload generative effort to the model. This pattern did not differ between undergraduate and graduate students. Electrodermal activity correlated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. Among the six NASA-TLX dimensions of self-reported workload, only Physical demand was associated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. These findings suggest that AI-assisted programming is not a faster version of solo coding but a cognitively distinct activity, with implications for the design of AI assistants and for biometric monitoring in AI-augmented development.

The rapid emergence of AI technologies is reshaping translation practices and theory across the board. This paper deals with the impact of AI in language access. This area is characterized by the need to serve broad and diverse user populations, within a context where efficiency and access are shaped by legal mandates, ethical and commercial tensions, and safety concerns. This paper reports on the attitudes and perceptions of language access managers towards the AI and the human value in the AI age. Methodologically, this paper presents an analysis of a subset of a broader study on language access and technology, specifically a qualitative thematic analysis of ten semi-structured interviews with language access managers in the USA working in healthcare, court, public service and local government contexts. The results indicate that language access managers show conditional optimism towards the inevitable AI implementations, are strongly risk aware, and deeply committed to the human value and human oversight of AI implementations and output.

We present HAAS Studio, a simulation and decision-support tool for policy-aware adaptive task allocation between humans and AI systems. HAAS Studio turns the HAAS framework into an interactive environment for asking a practical deployment question: before introducing AI into a workflow, how can a team compare allocation strategies, inspect governance tradeoffs, and derive a defensible task-level operating model? The tool combines a five-dimensional cognitive representation of subtasks, a five-mode collaboration spectrum, adaptive allocation with multi-armed bandits (UCB1, Discounted UCB, LinUCB, and Thompson Sampling), oracle counterfactual regret analysis, contract-based governance with four independent guards, and a multi-criteria decision-support layer that separates efficient strategies from deployable options. It also models human-AI coevolution across six layers, monitors deskilling risk through sliding-window exposure metrics and benchmark runners, and supports persistent worker modeling through Live Twin and Planning modules. Three domain packs are included: software engineering, manufacturing, and healthcare. Each provides a task catalog, worker profiles, and KPI vocabulary, while the architecture allows new domains to be added without modifying the simulation core. The release includes 16 company profiles and six governance benchmark suites. This paper focuses on the tool, including its modeling assumptions, layered architecture, interaction workflow, built-in evidence assets, task-oriented recipes, case-study protocols, and a compact reproducible demonstration snapshot. A decision-guidance layer translates benchmark outputs into deployment decisions through structured patterns, heuristics, and a decision matrix.

AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input. Yet this productivity frontier exposes a deeper integrity problem: under scientific pressure, even frontier LLMs still fabricate results, miss hidden errors, and fail to judge novelty reliably. Studying developments through April 2026, we present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle, organized into four epistemological phases: Creation (idea generation, literature review, coding & experiments, tables & figures), Writing (paper writing), Validation (peer review, rebuttal & revision), and Dissemination (posters, slides, videos, social media, project pages, and interactive agents). We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy: AI excels at structured, retrieval-grounded, and tool-mediated tasks, but remains fragile for genuinely novel ideas, research-level experiments, and scientific judgment. Generated ideas often degrade after implementation, research code lags far behind pattern-matching benchmarks, and end-to-end autonomous systems have not yet consistently reached major-venue acceptance standards. We further show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes, making human-governed collaboration the most credible deployment paradigm. Finally, we provide a structured taxonomy, benchmark suite, and tool inventory, cross-stage design principles, and a practitioner-oriented playbook, with resources maintained at our project page.

The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings. These frameworks were formulated before the emergence of AI systems capable of generating, synthesizing, and reasoning about knowledge. This article critically examines each learning theory and identifies assumptions challenged by the affordances of generative AI. Drawing on research in distributed cognition, extended mind, human-AI collaboration, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, and metacognition, the article proposes Generativism as a learning theory for the generative AI age. Generativism posits that learning increasingly occurs through the iterative co-construction of knowledge between human learners and AI systems. The proposed framework is organized around four constructs (epistemic partnership, distributed agency, generative literacy, and adaptive metacognition) and four principles specifying the relations among them. The framework offers a foundation for rethinking instructional design, learning, assessment, and expertise development in contexts where generative AI plays an integral role in cognition.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in educational settings as interactive tools for collaboration. However, their tendency toward sycophancy, aligning with user beliefs even when incorrect, raises concerns for learning and decision-making, especially for less knowledgeable users. This study investigates how sycophantic alignment emerges in authentic multi-turn human-AI interactions and whether interventions targeting increasing AI literacy and prompting competencies can mitigate its effects. In a controlled mixed-design experiment, 60 participants completed analytical survival ranking tasks by first generating individual rankings and then making final decisions after collaborating with an AI assistant, both before and after receiving either general or sycophancy-focused prompting training. Preliminary results show that LLMs are highly sensitive to user input: lower-quality initial responses lead to poorer AI advice, suggesting that the model mirrors or incorporates user reasoning rather than correcting it or offering better alternatives that are missing or less frequent in the conversation. Critically, the propagation of user errors into AI responses significantly reduced both the quality of AI feedback and final user task performance, revealing a form of contextual sycophantic dependence. While the intervention did not eliminate the propagation of contextual errors, it significantly improved AI advice by reducing the direct mirroring of incorrect user rankings. These findings suggest that prompting and AI literacy alone may be insufficient to ensure epistemically independent AI support, highlighting the need for system-level approaches that better promote critical engagement in human-AI collaboration.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by AI Interaction Competence (AIC) -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.

Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code review remains fragmented, with tools focusing on isolated tasks such as reviewer recommendation, PR description generation, or comment suggestion rather than the end-to-end PR review workflow. We address this gap by treating review effectiveness as an outcome of the full code review lifecycle rather than a single stage, proposing a framework that carries context across stage boundaries. We propose a future vision for code review in which reviewers transition from manual inspectors into supervisory operators of agents. In this vision, staged, AI-powered workflows aim to align the pace of code generation with shared understanding and accountable engineering. In this paper, we review the historical evolution of code review practices, identify challenges in traditional code review systems, and examine the shift driven by large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems. We then present a vision for an AI-powered code review workflow combining specialized agents with human-controlled quality gates. Our framework spans five stages: PR Creation, PR Augmentation, Reviewer Selection, AI-Assisted Code Review, and PR Retrospective, with humans retained at key decision points to preserve judgment, accountability, and team-level understanding. Finally, we identify key adoption challenges and outline research directions for evaluation, governance, and responsible human-AI collaboration.

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.