Research on teams spans many contexts, but integrating knowledge from heterogeneous sources is challenging because studies typically examine different tasks that cannot be directly compared. Most investigations involve teams working on just one or a handful of tasks, and researchers lack principled ways to quantify how similar or different these tasks are from one another. We address this challenge by introducing the “Task Space,” a multidimensional space in which tasks—and the distances between them—can be represented formally, and use it to create a “Task Map” of 102 crowd-annotated tasks from the published experimental literature. We then demonstrate the Task Space’s utility by performing an integrative experiment that addresses a fundamental question in team research: when do interacting groups outperform individuals? Our experiment samples 20 diverse tasks from the Task Map at three complexity levels and recruits 1,231 participants to work either individually or in groups of three or six (180 experimental conditions). We find striking heterogeneity in group advantage, with groups performing anywhere from three times worse to 60% better than the best individual working alone, depending on the task context. Critically, the Task Space makes this heterogeneity predictable: it significantly outperforms traditional typologies in predicting group advantage on unseen tasks. Our models also reveal theoretically meaningful interactions between task features; for example, group advantage on creative tasks depends on whether the answers are objectively verifiable. We conclude by arguing that the Task Space enables researchers to integrate findings across different experiments, thereby building cumulative knowledge about team performance. This paper was accepted by Sameer Srivastava, organizations. Funding: The authors thank the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation [Grant #202-13924] and the MIT Wade Fund for their generous support of this research. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03544 .
Hierarchical Task Analysis - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
As a labor-augmenting technology, large language models (LLMs) have the potential to accelerate scientific activity across the research pipeline. But even if LLMs perform on par with human experts at selected tasks, their use will bring unintended consequences as they alter the balance of frictions and inducements that steer the allocation of research effort across projects. Here we develop a simple mathematical model to illustrate. In fields where LLMs are useful primarily as tools for discovering promising projects, researchers will become more selective about what they publish; where they facilitate the process of publishing existing data, researchers will become less selective. By allowing scientists to work more quickly, LLMs raise the opportunity cost of researcher time, creating incentives to refine papers less thoroughly before moving on. Enticing as it is to imagine that, by saving us time on mundane tasks, LLMs will provide us with more time to think deeply and develop projects completely, our results temper such hopes.
The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
As a labor-augmenting technology, large language models (LLMs) have the potential to accelerate scientific activity across the research pipeline. But even if LLMs perform on par with human experts at selected tasks, their use will bring unintended consequences as they alter the balance of frictions and inducements that steer the allocation of research effort across projects. Here we develop a simple mathematical model to illustrate. In fields where LLMs are useful primarily as tools for discovering promising projects, researchers will become more selective about what they publish; where they facilitate the process of publishing existing data, researchers will become less selective. By allowing scientists to work more quickly, LLMs raise the opportunity cost of researcher time, creating incentives to refine papers less thoroughly before moving on. Enticing as it is to imagine that, by saving us time on mundane tasks, LLMs will provide us with more time to think deeply and develop projects completely, our results temper such hopes.
Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learning
We initiate a principled study of algorithmic collective action on digital platforms that deploy machine learning algorithms. We propose a simple theoretical model of a collective interacting with a firm's learning algorithm. The collective pools the data of participating individuals and executes an algorithmic strategy by instructing participants how to modify their own data to achieve a collective goal. We investigate the consequences of this model in three fundamental learning-theoretic settings: the case of a nonparametric optimal learning algorithm, a parametric risk minimizer, and gradient-based optimization. In each setting, we come up with coordinated algorithmic strategies and characterize natural success criteria as a function of the collective's size. Complementing our theory, we conduct systematic experiments on a skill classification task involving tens of thousands of resumes from a gig platform for freelancers. Through more than two thousand model training runs of a BERT-like language model, we see a striking correspondence emerge between our empirical observations and the predictions made by our theory. Taken together, our theory and experiments broadly support the conclusion that algorithmic collectives of exceedingly small fractional size can exert significant control over a platform's learning algorithm.
Agency plus automation: Designing artificial intelligence into interactive systems
Much contemporary rhetoric regards the prospects and pitfalls of using artificial intelligence techniques to automate an increasing range of tasks, especially those once considered the purview of people alone. These accounts are often wildly optimistic, understating outstanding challenges while turning a blind eye to the human labor that undergirds and sustains ostensibly “automated” services. This long-standing focus on purely automated methods unnecessarily cedes a promising design space: one in which computational assistance augments and enriches, rather than replaces, people’s intellectual work. This tension between human agency and machine automation poses vital challenges for design and engineering. In this work, we consider the design of systems that enable rich, adaptive interaction between people and algorithms. We seek to balance the often-complementary strengths and weaknesses of each, while promoting human control and skillful action. We share case studies of interactive systems we have developed in three arenas—data wrangling, exploratory analysis, and natural language translation—that integrate proactive computational support into interactive systems. To improve outcomes and support learning by both people and machines, we describe the use of shared representations of tasks augmented with predictive models of human capabilities and actions. We conclude with a discussion of future prospects and scientific frontiers for intelligence augmentation research.
AI systems out-persuade expert humans
Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with £1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was nearly 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in conversation, with significant implications for political communication.
How large language models can reshape collective intelligence
Collective intelligence underpins the success of groups, organizations, markets and societies. Through distributed cognition and coordination, collectives can achieve outcomes that exceed the capabilities of individuals—even experts—resulting in improved accuracy and novel capabilities. Often, collective intelligence is supported by information technology, such as online prediction markets that elicit the ‘wisdom of crowds’, online forums that structure collective deliberation or digital platforms that crowdsource knowledge from the public. Large language models, however, are transforming how information is aggregated, accessed and transmitted online. Here we focus on the unique opportunities and challenges this transformation poses for collective intelligence. We bring together interdisciplinary perspectives from industry and academia to identify potential benefits, risks, policy-relevant considerations and open research questions, culminating in a call for a closer examination of how large language models affect humans’ ability to collectively tackle complex problems.
Human–AI Collaboration at Scale: Task Criticality, Agency, and Friction Across 250,000 Conversations
Stanford University researchers analyzed nearly 250,000 real-world human-AI conversations from Claude.ai to understand collaborative dynamics, finding that over half of interactions involve...
Shifting the Level of Selection in Science
Criteria for recognizing and rewarding scientists primarily focus on individual contributions. This creates a conflict between what is best for scientists’ careers and what is best for science. In this article, we show how the theory of multilevel selection provides conceptual tools for modifying incentives to better align individual and collective interests. A core principle is the need to account for indirect effects by shifting the level at which selection operates from individuals to the groups in which individuals are embedded. This principle is used in several fields to improve collective outcomes, including animal husbandry, team sports, and professional organizations. Shifting the level of selection has the potential to ameliorate several problems in contemporary science, including accounting for scientists’ diverse contributions to knowledge generation, reducing individual-level competition, and promoting specialization and team science. We discuss the difficulties associated with shifting the level of selection and outline directions for future development in this domain.
Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Tasks
Large language models (LLMs) are remarkable data annotators. They can be used to generate high-fidelity supervised training data, as well as survey and experimental data. With the widespread adoption of LLMs, human gold--standard annotations are key to understanding the capabilities of LLMs and the validity of their results. However, crowdsourcing, an important, inexpensive way to obtain human annotations, may itself be impacted by LLMs, as crowd workers have financial incentives to use LLMs to increase their productivity and income. To investigate this concern, we conducted a case study on the prevalence of LLM usage by crowd workers. We reran an abstract summarization task from the literature on Amazon Mechanical Turk and, through a combination of keystroke detection and synthetic text classification, estimate that 33-46% of crowd workers used LLMs when completing the task. Although generalization to other, less LLM-friendly tasks is unclear, our results call for platforms, researchers, and crowd workers to find new ways to ensure that human data remain human, perhaps using the methodology proposed here as a stepping stone. Code/data: https://github.com/epfl-dlab/GPTurk
The Social Physics of Conversation: Why Communication Patterns Matter
Discover how communication patterns shape team performance, innovation, and collective intelligence. Learn why idea flow matters more than talent alone.
Addressing the Precision-Breadth-Simplicity Impossible Trinity in Psychological Research: A Comprehensive Exploration Approach
Psychological research faces a fundamental challenge—the Precision-Breadth-Simplicity (PBS) impossible trinity. While experimental findings are often precise and simple, they tend to be narrow in scope. Conversely, broad-and-simple concepts frequently lack precision. Developing theories that are both precise and broad is scientifically valuable but inevitably introduces complexity, which conflicts with humans’ cognitive limitations in processing complexity. To address this impossible trinity, I propose a comprehensive exploration (CE) approach—a data-guided theory-building framework that involves: (1) designing experimental conditions in a stimulus-driven way, with minimal upfront theoretical specification; (2) conducting experiments with tens of millions of observations (e.g., 40 million responses in Huang, 2025a); (3) modeling the results through iterative improvements; and (4) producing the outcome: a moderately complex quantitative information-processing model to integrate diverse empirical findings. Inspired by similar strategies that drove breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (e.g., ImageNet’s role in advancing object recognition), the CE approach offers a promising path toward more integrative psychological theories. Initial implementations in visual working memory research demonstrate both its practicality and potential to transform how we study mental processes.
Solipsistic Superintelligence is Unlikely to be Cooperative
AI's central challenge is shifting from capability to coexistence. The dominant paradigm in AI research focuses on developing powerful agents that treat the world as an exogenous and stationary source of feedback. We contend that superintelligence, an extremely capable task solver, born out of such a solipsistic approach to AI design, is unlikely to be cooperative. Deploying AI systems induces endogenous non-stationarity, resulting in a train-test-deploy gap where historical distributions diverge from the deployment context. We refer to this as the self-undermining property of unilateral optimization. Closing this gap requires AI that participates in cooperation: the equilibrium-selection process through which multiple actors navigate their interdependence. We call for a non-solipsistic research paradigm that treats this interdependence as a core design principle rather than approaching cooperation as a task to solve. This entails building dynamic evaluation testbeds involving adaptive counterparties, treating institutions as design primitives, and preserving human agency as a structural feature of the systems we build.
Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?
As the scope of machine learning broadens, we observe a recurring theme of algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components (e.g. datasets, models), are deployed by multiple decision-makers. While sharing offers advantages like amortizing effort, it also has risks. We introduce and formalize one such risk, outcome homogenization: the extent to which particular individuals or groups experience the same outcomes across different deployments. If the same individuals or groups exclusively experience undesirable outcomes, this may institutionalize systemic exclusion and reinscribe social hierarchy. We relate algorithmic monoculture and outcome homogenization by proposing the component sharing hypothesis: if algorithmic systems are increasingly built on the same data or models, then they will increasingly homogenize outcomes. We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that increased data-sharing reliably exacerbates homogenization and individual-level effects generally exceed group-level effects. Further, given the current regime in AI of foundation models, i.e. pretrained models that can be adapted to myriad downstream tasks, we test whether model-sharing homogenizes outcomes across tasks. We observe mixed results: we find that for both vision and language settings, the specific methods for adapting a foundation model significantly influence the degree of outcome homogenization. We also identify societal challenges that inhibit the measurement, diagnosis, and rectification of outcome homogenization in deployed machine learning systems.
How and When to Involve Crowds in Scientific Research - The Book
This book explores how millions of people can significantly contribute to scientific research. Discover main elements, authors, and who this book is for and why.
Heterogeneous participation and allocation skews: when is choice "worth it"?
A core ethos of the Economics and Computation (EconCS) community is that people have complex private preferences and information of which the central planner is unaware, but which an appropriately designed mechanism can uncover to improve collective decisionmaking. This ethos underlies the community's largest deployed success stories, from stable matching systems to participatory budgeting. I ask: is this choice and information aggregation ``worth it''? In particular, I discuss how such systems induce \textit{heterogeneous participation}: those already relatively advantaged are, empirically, more able to pay time costs and navigate administrative burdens imposed by the mechanisms. I draw on three case studies, including my own work -- complex democratic mechanisms, resident crowdsourcing, and school matching. I end with lessons for practice and research, challenging the community to help reduce participation heterogeneity and design and deploy mechanisms that meet a ``best of both worlds'' north star: \textit{use preferences and information from those who choose to participate, but provide a ``sufficient'' quality of service to those who do not.}