Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The same biases that often lead humans astray, such as availability, selection and confirmation biases, are reproduced and often even amplified in conversational AI.
“It seems that the same biases that often lead humans astray, such as availability, selection and confirmation biases, are reproduced and often even amplified in conversational AI 6 .”
From ChatGPT: five priorities for research (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 76 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Rich, A. S., & Gureckis, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Flatiron Health (United States) (US)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rich, Alexander S.
- Venue
- Nature Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2019-04-09
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 174-180
- ISSN
- 2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2937454300
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 13.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- algorithmic bias, human decision-making, human learning, artificial intelligence, machine learning, bias amplification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
