Better Slow than Sorry: Introducing Positive Friction for Reliable Dialogue Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While theories of discourse and cognitive science have long recognized the value of unhurried pacing, recent dialogue research tends to minimize friction in conversational systems. Yet, frictionless dialogue risks fostering uncritical reliance on AI outputs, which can obscure implicit assumptions and lead to unintended consequences. To meet this challenge, we propose integrating positive friction into conversational AI, which promotes user reflection on goals, critical thinking on system response, and subsequent re-conditioning of AI systems. We hypothesize systems can improve goal alignment, modeling of user mental states, and task success by deliberately slowing down conversations in strategic moments to ask questions, reveal assumptions, or pause. We present an ontology of positive friction and collect expert human annotations on multi-domain and embodied goal-oriented corpora. Experiments on these corpora, along with simulated interactions using state-of-the-art systems, suggest incorporating friction not only fosters accountable decision-making, but also enhances machine understanding of user beliefs and goals, and increases task success rates.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
7 papers.
- 2025Collaborate, Deliberate, Evaluate: How LLM Alignment Affects Coordinated Multi-Agent Outcomescited by 7
- 2025Understanding Common Ground Misalignment in Goal-Oriented Dialog: A Case-Study with Ubuntu Chat Logscited by 4
- 2025Dynamic Epistemic Friction in Dialoguecited by 4
- 2026From Task Success to Productive Success: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration by Quality and Costcited by 1
- 2026Breakdowns in Conversational AI: Interactional Failures in Emotionally and Ethically Sensitive Contextscited by 0
- 2026It Matters How You Say It: Exploring Rhetorical Patterns for AI-Assisted Information Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Illusion of Alignment: Detecting Hidden Disagreement in Collaborative Dialoguecited by 0
- 2026From Task Success to Productive Success: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration by Quality and Cost17 Sep 2026
- 2026Illusion of Alignment: Detecting Hidden Disagreement in Collaborative Dialogue8 Aug 2026
- 2026It Matters How You Say It: Exploring Rhetorical Patterns for AI-Assisted Information Evaluation20 Jul 2026
- 2026Breakdowns in Conversational AI: Interactional Failures in Emotionally and Ethically Sensitive Contexts3 Apr 2026
- 2025Collaborate, Deliberate, Evaluate: How LLM Alignment Affects Coordinated Multi-Agent Outcomes7 Sep 2025
- 2025Dynamic Epistemic Friction in Dialogue12 Jun 2025
- 2025Understanding Common Ground Misalignment in Goal-Oriented Dialog: A Case-Study with Ubuntu Chat Logs16 Mar 2025