In small-group problem-solving sessions with an always-on AI assistant as an external artifact, does explicitly assigning and rotating an “AI skeptic” role (responsible for challenging AI suggestions and prompting unguided attempts from others) reduce dominant-solver patterns, social loafing, and illusions of learning more effectively than generic facilitation strategies such as unstructured turn-taking alone?

Answer

It is plausible that assigning and rotating an explicit “AI skeptic” role will reduce dominant-solver patterns, social loafing, and illusions of learning more effectively than generic, unstructured turn‑taking alone, but this is a theoretical extrapolation rather than an established result. The advantage is most likely when: (a) the skeptic’s responsibilities are clearly defined to enforce unguided attempts and push back on premature AI use; (b) the skeptic role rotates frequently so it does not become a new dominance channel; and (c) the group already has basic structures that protect airtime for non‑dominant members. Without these design features, the skeptic role can collapse into either ritualized objections with little behavioral impact or a new dominant-solver identity, in which case it will not reliably outperform simple turn-taking and may even worsen dynamics.