  A growing body of research has explored how to support humans in making
better use of AI-based decision support, including via training and onboarding.
Existing research has focused on decision-making tasks where it is possible to
evaluate "appropriate reliance" by comparing each decision against a ground
truth label that cleanly maps to both the AI's predictive target and the human
decision-maker's goals. However, this assumption does not hold in many
real-world settings where AI tools are deployed today (e.g., social work,
criminal justice, and healthcare). In this paper, we introduce a
process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that
centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is
uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. To explore how
training can support critical use, we conduct a randomized online experiment in
a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find
that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to
practice AI-assisted decision-making in this setting, novices came to exhibit
patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers. A
qualitative examination of participants' explanations for their AI-assisted
decisions revealed that they drew upon qualitative case narratives, to which
the AI model did not have access, to learn when (not) to rely on AI
predictions. Our findings open new questions for the study and design of
training for real-world AI-assisted decision-making.
