Abstract
Research in psychology and artificial intelligence has sought to ground information-seeking behavior in rational terms, typically assuming that people or agents prefer more informative data over less informative data. While this seems reasonable on its surface, it assumes that informativeness is only a property of the data, rather than a joint property of the data and a (potentially bounded) learner. That is, to the extent that it is hard to draw the right inferences from data that are theoretically "high information," the data will not actually be highly informative to the learner. Here, we investigate active learning in humans using the code-breaking game Mastermind, which requires deductive reasoning from evidence. We find that people make queries that are less informative than random guesses, challenging standard rational or resource-rational accounts of information-seeking. We then show that people make queries are informative to them assuming they have a bounded capacity to draw inferences. We also find that participants prefer queries that provide easily-interpretable information over queries that provide more information but are less interpretable. Our results suggest that people are aware of their own cognitive limitations and seek information that they can use.