The Wisconsin Supreme Court allows machine advice in the courtroom only if accompanied by a series of warnings. We test 878 US lay participants with jury experience on fifty past cases where we know ground truth. The warnings affect their estimates of the likelihood of recidivism and their confidence, but not their decision whether to grant bail. Participants do not get better at identifying defendants who recidivated during the next two years. Results are essentially the same if participants are warned in easily accessible language, and if they are additionally informed about the low accuracy of machine predictions. The decision to grant bail is also unaffected by the warnings mandated by the Supreme Court if participants do not first decide without knowing the machine prediction. Oversampling cases where defendants committed violent crime does not change results either, whether coupled with machine predictions for general or for violent crime. Giving participants feedback and incentivizing them for finding ground truth has a small, weakly significant effect. The effect becomes significant at conventional levels when additionally using strong graphical warnings. Then participants are less likely to follow the advice. But the effect is counterproductive: they follow the advice less if it actually is closer to ground truth.

中文翻译：

---

带有机器限制警告的机器建议：对威斯康星州最高法院授权的解决方案进行实验测试

威斯康星州最高法院只有在伴随着一系列警告的情况下才允许在法庭上提供机器建议。我们测试了 878 名美国非专业参与者，他们在过去 50 个我们了解基本事实的案例中具有陪审团经验。这些警告会影响他们对累犯可能性的估计和他们的信心，但不会影响他们是否给予保释的决定。参与者并没有更好地识别在接下来的两年中再次犯罪的被告。如果参与者以易于理解的语言得到警告，并且他们还被告知机器预测的准确性低，结果基本相同。如果参与者在不知道机器预测的情况下首先做出决定，则准予保释的决定也不受最高法院授权的警告的影响。对被告犯下暴力犯罪的案件进行过采样也不会改变结果，无论是结合机器对一般犯罪还是暴力犯罪的预测。为参与者提供反馈并激励他们发现基本事实的效果很小，但效果并不显着。当另外使用强烈的图形警告时，这种效果在传统水平上变得显着。然后参与者不太可能听从建议。但效果适得其反：如果建议实际上更接近基本事实，他们就会更少遵循建议。当另外使用强烈的图形警告时，这种效果在传统水平上变得显着。然后参与者不太可能听从建议。但效果适得其反：如果建议实际上更接近基本事实，他们就会更少遵循建议。当另外使用强烈的图形警告时，这种效果在传统水平上变得显着。然后参与者不太可能听从建议。但效果适得其反：如果建议实际上更接近基本事实，他们就会更少遵循建议。