Cognitive Amplification vs Cognitive Delegation in Human-AI Systems: A Metric Framework
This addresses the design tension in human-AI systems for ensuring cognitive sustainability, though it is incremental as it builds on existing concepts with new metrics.
The paper tackles the problem of distinguishing between AI enhancing human reasoning versus causing excessive dependence, introducing a metric framework to evaluate whether human-AI systems achieve synergistic performance while preserving human expertise over time.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, where it can either enhance human reasoning or induce excessive cognitive dependence. This paper introduces a conceptual and mathematical framework for distinguishing cognitive amplification, in which AI improves hybrid human-AI performance while preserving human expertise, from cognitive delegation, in which reasoning is progressively outsourced to AI systems. To characterize these regimes, we define a set of operational metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), the Dependency Ratio (D), the Human Reliance Index (HRI), and the Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). Together, these quantities provide a low-dimensional metric space for evaluating not only whether human-AI systems achieve genuine synergistic performance, but also whether such performance is cognitively sustainable for the human component over time. The framework highlights a central design tension in human-AI systems: maximizing short-term hybrid capability does not necessarily preserve long-term human cognitive competence. We therefore argue that human-AI systems should be designed under a cognitive sustainability constraint, such that gains in hybrid performance do not come at the cost of degradation in human expertise.