This literature review surveys the evolution of Human-AI interaction research, arguing that the field has been overly focused on Explainable AI (XAI) — making AI systems understandable to users — while neglecting more impactful forms of interaction that give users genuine agency. The authors systematically analyze studies across Human-Centered AI, Contestable AI, Interactive AI, and Interactive Machine Learning (IML), identifying a critical gap: most existing work treats humans as passive recipients of AI explanations rather than active participants in AI system design and evolution.

The review reveals several key findings. A wide range of studies fail to include end-users in co-designing AI systems, and recent research on active interaction tends to focus on low-risk domains like education and leisure while neglecting high-stakes areas such as healthcare and security. Most AI systems prioritize enhancing user experience for acceptance rather than enabling meaningful user control over AI mechanics. Only a small number of studies, primarily in the Interactive Machine Learning domain, allow users to actively modify AI internals — representing an underexplored opportunity for greater user empowerment.

The authors propose a framework centered on three dimensions — AI Users, AI Implementations, and AI Goals — and advocate for interactions that are explicit (obvious to the user), intentional (user-initiated), and informed (the user understands the system's functionality). They call for a shift from theoretical proposals to practical experimentation, offering design guidelines that promote participatory human-AI interaction and shared responsibility between users and AI systems. The work highlights that achieving truly interactive AI requires moving well beyond explainability toward systems where humans are co-creators, not just consumers.

This research paper examines how AI agents are transforming knowledge work by analyzing production data from Perplexity's Search and Computer products. The study compares conversational AI assistants with autonomous agents that execute tasks end-to-end, revealing three key findings. First, Computer performs 26 minutes of autonomous work per session compared to just 33 seconds for Search, automating task decomposition and execution while shifting user follow-up queries toward higher-order work like verification and extension. Per-query dissatisfaction rates are 55% lower on the autonomous Computer product.

Second, the autonomy advantage dramatically reduces task completion time from 269 to 36 minutes on matched tasks, lowering estimated time and cost by 87% and 94% respectively compared to humans using Search alone. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the study finds that AI agents change the scope of work users attempt — Computer queries more frequently cross occupational boundaries, require higher-order cognition, draw on broader expertise, and bundle interdependent subtasks into composite queries. The research demonstrates that autonomous AI agents don't just speed up existing workflows but fundamentally expand the breadth and depth of automated work that users are willing to undertake.

This research paper from Harvard Business School and Perplexity AI provides the first field evidence on how autonomous AI agents reshape knowledge work compared to conversational AI assistants. Using production data from Perplexity's Search and Computer products, the authors develop a task-based economic framework and examine four dimensions: adoption, autonomy, efficiency, and scope. The key finding is that Computer performs 26 minutes of autonomous work per session versus just 33 seconds for Search — a 48× increase — while reducing per-query dissatisfaction rates by 55%. On matched tasks, the agent reduces completion time from 269 to 36 minutes, yielding 87% time savings and 94% cost savings compared to humans using Search alone.

Beyond raw efficiency, the paper documents a fundamental expansion in the scope of work users attempt when given access to agents. Computer queries more frequently cross occupational boundaries, require higher-order cognition (71% abstract non-routine tasks vs. 53% for Search), draw on broader expertise domains (+38% more O*NET Knowledge domains per query), and bundle more subtasks into single queries. Notably, 23% of Computer queries involve task types that never appear in the same users' Search history, suggesting agents unlock entirely new categories of work rather than merely accelerating existing ones.

The conceptual framework elegantly captures the core tradeoff: agents have higher fixed delegation costs (specifying objectives, reviewing output) but lower marginal per-step execution costs, making them economically preferred for complex, multi-step tasks. User interviews corroborate the quantitative findings, with reported speedups ranging from 5× to 300× and cost reductions of two to three orders of magnitude. The paper also finds that Computer and Search are complements rather than substitutes — adopting Computer increases daily Search usage by approximately one additional query per day — consistent with the framework's prediction that agent-driven cost savings free up budget for shorter tasks where conversational tools retain an advantage.

This paper introduces Human-Centered Human-AI Collaboration (HCHAC), a framework that redefines the relationship between humans and AI systems in the intelligent era. The authors argue that as AI agents evolve from passive tools to active teammates, the collaboration paradigm must shift accordingly, with humans maintaining critical leadership roles throughout. The chapter, part of an upcoming Handbook of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, reviews current research methodologies and agendas within the HAC field through the lens of Human-Centered AI (HCAI).

The proposed HCHAC framework integrates existing research to address the unique challenges of human-AI collaboration, including effectiveness, reliability, and ethical integration. A case study on autonomous vehicles demonstrates practical applications of the framework, illustrating how synergistic interactions between humans and AI agents can function in real-world contexts. The paper concludes by identifying future research directions aimed at improving human-centered HAC systems across diverse domains, emphasizing that the design of collaborative AI must prioritize human agency and oversight rather than full automation.

This paper presents a large-scale dynamic experiment with over 800 participants across 40+ countries investigating how exposure to AI-generated ideas from ChatGPT affects human creativity, idea diversity, and the evolution of collective thought. Using a variant of the Alternate Uses Task (AUT), a standard divergent thinking measure, participants brainstormed creative uses for everyday objects after viewing example ideas that were either human-generated (from prior participants) or AI-generated. The researchers manipulated two key factors: AI exposure level (none, low, or high) and AI disclosure (whether AI-generated ideas were labeled as such). The experiment's dynamic design, inspired by the "multiple-worlds" paradigm, allowed ideas from earlier participants to feed forward as stimuli for later ones, simulating how AI content compounds through a cultural feedback loop.

The key finding is that high AI exposure increased collective idea diversity but did not improve individual creativity — in short, AI made ideas different, not better. High AI exposure also accelerated the rate of change in idea diversity over time, a compounding effect with potentially significant long-term implications. There were no main effects of disclosure (labeling ideas as AI-generated), though interesting moderating effects emerged: self-identified creative individuals were less influenced by AI disclosure, while participants appeared more likely to knowingly adopt AI ideas when the task was difficult. The study contributes a novel experimental framework for studying passive AI exposure — the increasingly common scenario where people encounter AI-generated content without actively soliciting it — and suggests that while AI integration may enrich the diversity of a collective idea pool, it does not necessarily elevate the quality of individual contributions.