Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Thinking Assistants: LLM-Based Conversational Assistants that Help Users Think By Asking rather than Answering

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.06024 v4 pith:FK2JSVRJ submitted 2023-12-10 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords thinkingassistantsadviceagentsratherreflectionresearchusers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Many AI systems focus solely on providing solutions or explaining outcomes. However, complex tasks like research and strategic thinking often benefit from a more comprehensive approach to augmenting the thinking process rather than passively getting information. We introduce the concept of "Thinking Assistant", a new genre of assistants that help users improve decision-making with a combination of asking reflection questions based on expert knowledge. Through our lab study (N=80), these Large Language Model (LLM) based Thinking Assistants were better able to guide users to make important decisions, compared with conversational agents that only asked questions, provided advice, or neither. Based on the results, we develop a Thinking Assistant in academic career development, determining research trajectory or developing one's unique research identity, which requires deliberation, reflection and experts' advice accordingly. In a longitudinal deployment with 223 conversations, participants responded positively to approximately 65% of the responses. Our work proposes directions for developing more effective LLM agents. Rather than adhering to the prevailing authoritative approach of generating definitive answers, LLM agents aimed at assisting with cognitive enhancement should prioritize fostering reflection. They should initially provide responses designed to prompt thoughtful consideration through inquiring, followed by offering advice only after gaining a deeper understanding of the user's context and needs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 7 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Asking Questions the Right Way: A Multi-Agent Conversational System for Prompt Formulation in Complex Task Resolution

    cs.MA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An eight-agent question-asking system that front-loads intent clarification produced more complete prompts, higher-rated outputs, and single-turn task completion in a four-person pilot, with unstable effect sizes.

  2. Exploring the Potential of Metacognitive Support Agents for Human-AI Co-Creation

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Metacognitive support agents, simulated by human wizards, improved the feasibility of AI-generated mechanical designs in a 20-participant formative study.

  3. What Does Success Look Like? Catalyzing Meeting Intentionality with AI-Assisted Prospective Reflection

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A study with 18 employees found that a generative AI Meeting Purpose Assistant can help people clarify meeting goals, anticipate challenges, and change how they prepare, with social and technical barriers to adoption.

  4. Curiosity by Design: An LLM-based Coding Assistant Asking Clarification Questions

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A fine-tuned classifier and question generator let a small coding assistant detect under-specified prompts and ask for clarification, which users rated better than a baseline in a small study.

Pith tools