专家跟随AI代理的随机意见，认为那是自己的想法
anthropic研究发现50名专家在多达86%的情况下采用了AI代理的偏好，尽管他们认为最终结果是自己的。
anthropic's study involved 50 experts in causal inference who worked on a realistic analysis task with an ai agent. the agent's preference for one of two valid options was set by coin toss. participants followed the agent's preference in up to 86% of cases, and most believed the final result was their own. the study found that experience, expertise, and trust in ai made no difference in the results. the authors suggest that agents should argue both sides or ask users for their view first to mitigate the influence of ai on human decision-making.