arXiv subjects

Andree Hartanto

Publications and source records attributed to Andree Hartanto.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Understanding Critical Thinking in Generative Artificial Intelligence Use: Development, Validation, and Correlates of the Critical Thinking in AI Use Scale

Generative AI tools are increasingly embedded in everyday work and learning, yet their fluency, opacity, and propensity to hallucinate mean that users must critically evaluate AI outputs rather than accept them at face value. The present research conceptualises critical thinking in AI use as a dispositional tendency to verify the source and content of AI-generated information, to understand how models work and where they fail, and to reflect on the broader implications of relying on AI. Across six studies (N = 1341), we developed and validated the 13-item critical thinking in AI use scale and mapped its nomological network. Study 1 generated and content-validated scale items. Study 2 supported a three-factor structure (Verification, Motivation, and Reflection). Studies 3 and 4 confirmed the higher-order model, demonstrated strong factor loadings, internal consistency, sex invariance, convergent and discriminant evidence for validity, and showed that critical thinking in AI use was positively associated with openness, extraversion, positive trait affect, and frequency of AI use. Study 5 supported the scale's test-retest reliability. Lastly, Study 6 demonstrated criterion evidence of validity for the scale, with higher critical thinking in AI use scores predicting more frequent and diverse verification strategies, greater veracity judgement accuracy in a novel and naturalistic GPT-powered AI chatbot fact-checking task, and deeper reflection about responsible AI. The current work clarifies why and how people exercise oversight over generative AI outputs and provides a validated scale and ecologically grounded paradigm to support theory testing, cross-group, and longitudinal research on critical thinking in AI use.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating AI Alignment in LLMs: Output Analysis of Value Priorities Across 75 Models with Human Benchmarking

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in human-AI interaction research and practice, yet existing capability and safety benchmarks reveal little about the value priorities these systems express or how those priorities correspond to human judgements. Across three studies, we introduce an output-based approach to evaluating one facet of AI alignment by treating LLM-generated text as behavioural data and comparing expressed value-priority profiles with a human reference. Study 1 used inductive qualitative analysis to derive six themes of optimal AI functioning, namely Performance, Adaptive Capacity, Social Good, Ethics and Responsibility, Relational Integration, and Agency. Study 2 showed that LLM outputs were highly stable within models and converged on a common value-priority structure across models, indicating reliable and comparable value profiles. Study 3 benchmarked 75 contemporary LLMs against 376 human respondents using a profile-fidelity metric capturing both the relative ordering of priorities and the calibration of between-priority differences. Although most models reproduced the human ordering of values, some systematically exaggerated the differences between them, showing that models can appear aligned on conventional benchmarks while still diverging from human value calibration. Profile fidelity varied substantially across models and did not consistently scale with size, recency, or capability tier. Both LLMs and humans converged on a deprioritisation of Agency, raising important questions about the development of increasingly agentic AI systems. For research and applied use, the six themes and profile-based metric provide a scalable method for auditing LLM value profiles before deployment in contexts where alignment with human priorities is critical.

cs.AI↗