product managers for ai tools

Abstract: As multimodal AI systems are becoming our everyday thought partners, the shift towards studying how users transfer control to these systems becomes especially urgent. In this paper, we report an overview of findings from an online study with n=56 AI-literate participants and 392 Video Question Answering trials. After inspecting each multimodal AI response, participants rated task-specific trust and selected one of three intended policies for an analogous future task: reject AI assistance, use it with verification, or delegate fully to the AI. Within participants, post-interaction trust strongly predicted the user's delegation choices (OR=14.97, 95% CI [7.14,31.37]). Trust and delegation nevertheless remained distinct. Verification was the dominant policy and often co-occurred with high trust. Delegation also increased with task order after adjustment for momentary and participant-level trust (OR=1.22, 95% CI [1.02,1.45]), indicating an experience-related component that self-reported trust ratings alone could not capture. These findings motivate a shift from intended delegation to a non-intrusive observation of how delegation is enacted in collaborative human-AI tasks. We therefore conclude by proposing enacted delegation traces as a methodological framework for future studies of multimodal and agentic AI use.

Abstract: AI scaling studies increasingly evaluate systems that combine a pretrained model with retrieval, search, verification, tools, and interaction. Yet a higher score under a larger budget does not by itself show where additional resources are best spent. This critical integrative review asks when a reported scaling result supports a resource-allocation decision. It compares evidence across pretraining, test-time computation, retrieval, and agent evaluation, distinguishing the performance of a tested procedure from the best performance achievable under a resource limit. The synthesis shows that three mismatches recur across this evidence: success counted before an answer is chosen, information a deployed system will not have, and costs left out of the comparison. A capability surface expresses performance as a function of budgets, mechanisms, and available information. Worked analytical examples show how the evaluation metric, deployment volume, selection rule, and stopping policy can alter an allocation conclusion. A resource envelope provides a structured record of the task, development and run-time resources, information access, and procedure behind a reported score. Its application to a published comparison illustrates which conclusions the evidence supports and which deployment questions remain unresolved. The resulting framework specifies the comparisons needed to choose among feasible systems and motivates experiments on the transfer of allocation rules across tasks and operating conditions. It does not propose a universal scaling law or infer general intelligence from benchmark gains.

Abstract: An LLM-agent leaderboard invites a familiar inference: an agent ranked above another is the better agent. Public evaluation logs may not support that conclusion when systems differ in task mixture, label source, release detail, or cost rule. We study what leaderboard scores estimate and when they justify pairwise superiority conclusions. Our estimand-aware pairwise procedure states the comparison target and measurement source, checks common support, and evaluates the supported difference using a stated uncertainty rule and practical margin. Controlled checks evaluate the decision labels under known finite-sample conditions and show why uncertainty must be included when judging sensitivity to target reweighting. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are often unresolved; proxy labels and utility rules can also change which system is selected. DataAgentBench and Open Agent show what remains estimable from coarser public records. A leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation, whereas a fine-grained superiority claim additionally depends on the estimand and uncertainty rule used to interpret the difference.