English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Previous research on expert advice-taking shows that humans exhibit twocontradictory behaviors: on the one hand, people tend to overvalue their ownopinions undervaluing the expert opinion, and on the other, people often deferto other people's advice even if the advice itself is rather obviously wrong.In our study, we conduct an exploratory evaluation of users' AI-adviceaccepting behavior when evaluating the truthfulness of a health-relatedstatement in different "advice quality" settings. We find that even feedbackthat is confined to just stating that "the AI thinks that the statement isfalse/true" results in more than half of people moving their statement veracityassessment towards the AI suggestion. The different types of advice giveninfluence the acceptance rates, but the sheer effect of getting a suggestion isoften bigger than the suggestion-type effect.

Right, No Matter Why: AI Fact-checking and AI Authority in Health-related Inquiry Settings