Superhuman AI Disclosure: Impacts on Toxicity, Fairness, and Trust Vary by Expertise and Persona Attributes

As artificial intelligence demonstrates surpassing human performance across real-world tasks, disclosing superhuman capabilities poses challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. To investigate how transparency impacts attitudes and perceptions, we introduce a grounded and validated set of synthetic personas reflecting diverse fairness concerns and technology acceptance levels. Then we evaluate responses in two contrasting domains: (1) a competitive player in StarCraft II, where strategy and high-skill gameplay often elicit toxic interactions, and (2) a cooperative personal-assistant in providing information. Across numerous interactions spanning persona profiles, we test non-disclosure versus explicit superhuman labelling under controlled game outcomes and usage contexts. Our findings reveal sharp domain-specific effects: in StarCraft II, explicitly labelling AI as superhuman, novice personas who learned of it reported lower toxicity and higher fairness-attributing defeat to advanced skill rather than hidden cheating-whereas expert personas found the disclosure statements irksome but still less deceptive than non-disclosure. Conversely, in the LLM as personal-assistant setting, disclosure of superhuman capabilities improved perceived trustworthiness, though it risked AI overreliance among certain persona segments. We release Dataset X-containing persona cards-including profile attributes, disclosure prompts, and detailed interaction logs, accompanied by reproducible protocols and disclaimers for adapting them to diverse tasks. Our results demonstrate that transparency is not a cure-all: while it reduces suspicion and enhances trust in cooperative contexts, it may inflame resistance or disappointment in competitive domains.