Why relying on AI may lead to poor decision making
Peer-Reviewed Publication
Updates every hour. Last Updated: 19-May-2026 23:16 ET (20-May-2026 03:16 GMT/UTC)
Guidance based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) may be uniquely placed to foster biases in humans, leading to less effective decision making say researchers, who found that people with a positive view of AI may be at higher risk of being misled by AI tools.
The study entitled “Examining Human Reliance on Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making” is published in Scientific Reports.
Lead author Dr Sophie Nightingale of Lancaster University said: “Understanding human reliance on AI is critical given controversial reports of AI inaccuracy and bias. Furthermore, the erroneous belief that using technology removes biases may lead to overreliance on AI.”
A new study shows that sustainable finance relies on trust, but that trust challenges are increasingly focused on ESG rating providers, creating both a solution to greenwashing and a new regulatory risk. By comparing how the EU and the UK regulate ESG rating firms, the authors find that policymakers use “enhanced self-regulation,” combining public oversight with industry-led rules, to build trust in emerging ESG markets and repair trust when credibility is questioned. The study’s key insight is that trust-building and trust-repair require regulatory interventions that target both the regulatory intermediaries and the substantive aspects of their activities. Where ESG raters both shape markets and must themselves be trusted, regulating these intermediaries supports a credible market-led green transition.
Talent strategy follows pressure: Stable, well-resourced firms tend to grow talent internally, while firms facing volatile workloads are more likely to hire from the outside.
Critical care medicine (CCM) in China is entering a new phase with the release of comprehensive national guidelines that redefine how intensive care units (ICUs) are planned, staffed, and managed. Published in Journal of Intensive Medicine on December 30, 2025, the consensus document integrates lessons learned from major public health emergencies with long-term system planning. It proposes tiered standards covering infrastructure, workforce development, quality management, digital transformation, and emergency preparedness, aiming to strengthen resilience, consistency, and equity in critical care delivery across hospitals nationwide.