>human element
← All writing

The interactivity you paid for

By

Adding a chat surface to an AI advisor did not shift behaviour, and almost nobody used it. The interactivity is a demo asset.

Half the AI advisor roadmaps I see this year justify their scope with the same sentence. Users will interrogate the model. Users will keep asking until they understand.

I stopped believing that a while ago. Now there is a paper that measures it.

The chat that never happened

A Head of Product at a B2B fintech in Amsterdam, last month, on a coaching call. She pulled up the Figma. Every AI recommendation had a chat input under it. Follow-up questions, threaded state, the whole surface. The engineering estimate was nine weeks.

I asked what fraction of users would actually use it. She said most. I asked how she knew. She said the persona interviews were clear. Users had told the researcher they would want to iterate on the model's answer.

I asked whether anyone had watched a user actually iterate on anything in the current product. There was a pause. Then I sent her the paper.


What the researchers actually found

Althaus, Houf and Schwieren ran an incentivized lab experiment at Heidelberg and Karlsruhe. N=158. Three arms: a static calculator, a one-shot AI answer, and an interactive AI the participant could re-query. Lottery choices were identical across conditions. Only the interactivity of the aid varied.

Interactivity did not move risk aversion. β̂₁ = 0.032 with a 95% CI of [-0.239, 0.302]. This is not a power problem. Their equivalence tests rule out effects larger than Δr≈0.275 at 90% confidence, and the sensitivity control (safe-option position) produced a significant -0.308, p<0.01. The design catches real behavioural effects when they exist. This one did not exist.

Then the second finding, which is the one my client stared at:

the interactive follow-up feature was almost unused, with only 2 of 49 participants ever asking a follow-up.

Two of forty-nine. In an incentivized lab where subjects were paid to think.

A different paper a week earlier looked at disclosed AI persuasion in dominated financial choices, and found the opposite: users bent toward the AI even when warned. The claim here is narrower and, for a roadmap, sharper. Adding chat did not shift the decision, and almost nobody used the chat.

If your product's business case rests on the dialogue actually happening, measure whether people ask the follow-up. Track that separately from clicks. Ship the surface if you like, but do not fund a nine-week sprint on a behaviour you have not seen in your own users.

The interactivity you paid for is a demo asset until proven otherwise.

Source · Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment · Althaus, Paul · Houf, Leon · Schwieren, Christiane · Heidelberg University · Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · 2026
Fatjon Tony Kalemaj is an AI Strategist and Consultant who helps organisations become AI-enabled. He is also the founder of Human Element, a space for practitioners and thinkers navigating the AI era. He has been using AI in production work since 2023 and believes the most valuable thing in the AI era is knowing what to ask of it.
> the writing

Ideas, observations,
and honest takes.

No hype. No tools-of-the-week. Just the work, explained clearly, from someone who uses this every day and cares whether it is accurate.

No spam. Unsubscribe any time.

>human element
© 2026 Human Elementhello@humanelement.tech