arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Should we Make AI More Tool-like or Teammate-Like?

Neelam Naikar et al.

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making2025https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434251346904article
AJG 2
Weight
0.44

What the paper says

Recent successes in artificial intelligence (AI) have ignited debate over its role in human-machine systems—specifically, whether an AI system should be viewed as a tool or a teammate. This article consists of a set of essays that explore this question from a macrocognitive viewpoint. These essays reveal similarities across stances, and divergences regarding interpretations of the teammate metaphor. Discussions include concerns about potential risks and effects of the teammate metaphor on users, in addition to expressions of the value of the metaphor for work system design. The essays highlight the role of metaphors in both enhancing and stifling design creativity, the blending of metaphors in design, and the need for empirical evaluation to guide clear design choices. Moreover, regardless of which approach is adopted, the “technology-first” mindset of system developers, the emphasis on relatively simple human-machine interactions over complex, evolving work systems, and the insidious effects of AI on human expertise all challenge progress in the design of macrocognitive work systems. The essays present some specific research directions.

3 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434251346904

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{neelam2025,
  title        = {{Should we Make AI More Tool-like or Teammate-Like?}},
  author       = {Neelam Naikar et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434251346904},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Should we Make AI More Tool-like or Teammate-Like?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.