From Augmentation to Symbiosis: A Review of Human-AI Collaboration Frameworks, Performance, and Perils
Open accessAbstract
This paper offers a concise, 60-year synthesis of human-AI collaboration, from Licklider's ``man-computer symbiosis" (AI as colleague) and Engelbart's ``augmenting human intellect" (AI as tool) to contemporary poles: Human-Centered AI's ``supertool" and Symbiotic Intelligence's mutual-adaptation model. We formalize the mechanism for effective teaming as a causal chain: Explainable AI (XAI) -> co-adaptation -> shared mental models (SMMs). A meta-analytic ``performance paradox" is then examined: human-AI teams tend to show negative synergy in judgment/decision tasks (underperforming AI alone) but positive synergy in content creation and problem formulation. We trace failures to the algorithm-in-the-loop dynamic, aversion/bias asymmetries, and cumulative cognitive deskilling. We conclude with a unifying framework--combining extended-self and dual-process theories--arguing that durable gains arise when AI functions as an internalized cognitive component, yielding a unitary human-XAI symbiotic agency. This resolves the paradox and delineates a forward agenda for research and practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Tong, R. J.
- Corresponding author
- Tong, Richard Jiarui
- ORCID
- Tong, Richard Jiarui
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2601.06030
- OpenAlex
- W7123900144
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- human-AI collaboration, human-AI teaming, explainable AI, shared mental models, cognitive synergy, performance paradox, human-centered AI, dual-process theory, extended self, symbiotic intelligence, decision-making, content creation
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
