In AI-assisted decision-making, it is crucial but challenging for humans to appropriately rely on AI, especially in high-stakes domains such as finance and healthcare. This paper addresses this problem from a human-centered perspective by presenting an intervention for self-confidence shaping, designed to calibrate self-confidence at a targeted level. We first demonstrate the impact of self-confidence shaping by quantifying the upper-bound improvement in human-AI team performance. Our behavioral experiments with 121 participants show that self-confidence shaping can improve human-AI team performance by nearly 50% by mitigating both over- and under-reliance on AI. We then introduce a self-confidence prediction task to identify when our intervention is needed. Our results show that simple machine-learning models achieve 67% accuracy in predicting self-confidence. We further illustrate the feasibility of such interventions. The observed relationship between sentiment and self-confidence suggests that modifying sentiment could be a viable strategy for shaping self-confidence. Finally, we outline future research directions to support the deployment of self-confidence shaping in a real-world scenario for effective human-AI collaboration.

In the post-Turing era, evaluating large language models (LLMs) involves assessing generated text based on readers' reactions rather than merely its indistinguishability from human-produced content. This paper explores how LLM-generated text impacts readers' decisions, focusing on both amateur and expert audiences. Our findings indicate that GPT-4 can generate persuasive analyses affecting the decisions of both amateurs and professionals. Furthermore, we evaluate the generated text from the aspects of grammar, convincingness, logical coherence, and usefulness. The results highlight a high correlation between real-world evaluation through audience reactions and the current multi-dimensional evaluators commonly used for generative models. Overall, this paper shows the potential and risk of using generated text to sway human decisions and also points out a new direction for evaluating generated text, i.e., leveraging the reactions and decisions of readers. We release our dataset to assist future research.

Causality is fundamental in human cognition and has drawn attention in diverse research fields. With growing volumes of textual data, discerning causalities within text data is crucial, and causal text mining plays a pivotal role in extracting meaningful patterns. This study conducts comprehensive evaluations of ChatGPT's causal text mining capabilities. Firstly, we introduce a benchmark that extends beyond general English datasets, including domain-specific and non-English datasets. We also provide an evaluation framework to ensure fair comparisons between ChatGPT and previous approaches. Finally, our analysis outlines the limitations and future challenges in employing ChatGPT for causal text mining. Specifically, our analysis reveals that ChatGPT serves as a good starting point for various datasets. However, when equipped with a sufficient amount of training data, previous models still surpass ChatGPT's performance. Additionally, ChatGPT suffers from the tendency to falsely recognize non-causal sequences as causal sequences. These issues become even more pronounced with advanced versions of the model, such as GPT-4. In addition, we highlight the constraints of ChatGPT in handling complex causality types, including both intra/inter-sentential and implicit causality. The model also faces challenges with effectively leveraging in-context learning and domain adaptation. We release our code to support further research and development in this field.