More Like this

1. GenAIPABench: A Benchmark for Generative AI-based Privacy Assistants

   Hamid, Aamir; Samidi, Hemanth Reddy; Finin, Tim; Pappachan, Primal; Yus, Robert (July 2024, Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies)

   Website privacy policies are often lengthy and intricate. Privacy assistants assist in simplifying policies and making them more accessible and user-friendly. The emergence of generative AI (genAI) offers new opportunities to build privacy assistants that can answer users’ questions about privacy policies. However, genAI’s reliability is a concern due to its potential for producing inaccurate information. This study introduces GenAIPABench, a benchmark for evaluating Generative AI-based Privacy Assistants (GenAIPAs). GenAIPABench includes: 1) A set of curated questions about privacy policies along with annotated answers for various organizations and regulations; 2) Metrics to assess the accuracy, relevance, and consistency of responses; and 3) A tool for generating prompts to introduce privacy policies and paraphrased variants of the curated questions. We evaluated three leading genAI systems—ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing AI—using GenAIPABench to gauge their effectiveness as GenAIPAs. Our results demonstrate significant promise in genAI capabilities in the privacy domain while also highlighting challenges in managing complex queries, ensuring consistency, and verifying source accuracy. 

   more » « less
2. Incorporating Taxonomic Reasoning and Regulatory Knowledge into Automated Privacy Question Answering

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-0579-8_31  

   Ravichander, Abhilasha; Yang, Ian; Chen, Rex; Wilson, Shomir; Norton, Thomas; Sadeh, Norman (November 2024, Springer Nature Singapore)

   Privacy policies are often lengthy and complex legal documents, and are difficult for many people to read and comprehend. Recent research efforts have explored automated assistants that process the language in policies and answer people’s privacy questions. This study documents the importance of two different types of reasoning necessary to generate accurate answers to people’s privacy questions. The first is the need to support taxonomic reasoning about related terms commonly found in privacy policies. The second is the need to reason about regulatory disclosure requirements, given the prevalence of silence in privacy policy texts. Specifically, we report on a study involving the collection of 749 sets of expert annotations to answer privacy questions in the context of 210 different policy/question pairs. The study highlights the importance of taxonomic reasoning and of reasoning about regulatory disclosure requirements when it comes to accurately answering everyday privacy questions. Next we explore to what extent current generative AI tools are able to reliably handle this type of reasoning. Our results suggest that in their current form and in the absence of additional help, current models cannot reliably support the type of reasoning about regulatory disclosure requirements necessary to accurately answer privacy questions. We proceed to introduce and evaluate different approaches to improving their performance. Through this work, we aim to provide a richer understanding of the capabilities automated systems need to have to provide accurate answers to everyday privacy questions and, in the process, outline paths for adapting AI models for this purpose. 

   more » « less
3. Generative artificial intelligence for academic research: evidence from guidance issued for researchers by higher education institutions in the United States

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00688-7  

   Ganguly, Amrita; Johri, Aditya; Ali, Areej; McDonald, Nora (March 2025, AI and Ethics)

   Abstract The recent development and use of generative AI (GenAI) has signaled a significant shift in research activities such as brainstorming, proposal writing, dissemination, and even reviewing. This has raised questions about how to balance the seemingly productive uses of GenAI with ethical concerns such as authorship and copyright issues, use of biased training data, lack of transparency, and impact on user privacy. To address these concerns, many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have released institutional guidance for researchers. To better understand the guidance that is being provided we report findings from a thematic analysis of guidelines from thirty HEIs in the United States that are classified as R1 or “very high research activity.” We found that guidance provided to researchers: (1) asks them to refer to external sources of information such as funding agencies and publishers to keep updated and use institutional resources for training and education; (2) asks them to understand and learn about specific GenAI attributes that shape research such as predictive modeling, knowledge cutoff date, data provenance, and model limitations, and educate themselves about ethical concerns such as authorship, attribution, privacy, and intellectual property issues; and (3) includes instructions on how to acknowledge sources and disclose the use of GenAI, how to communicate effectively about their GenAI use, and alerts researchers to long term implications such as over reliance on GenAI, legal consequences, and risks to their institutions from GenAI use. Overall, guidance places the onus of compliance on individual researchers making them accountable for any lapses, thereby increasing their responsibility. 

   more » « less
4. Analysis of Generative AI Policies in Computing Course Syllabi

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3641554.3701823  

   Ali, Areej; Collier, Aayushi Hingle; Dewan, Umama; McDonald, Nora; Johri, Aditya (February 2025, ACM)

   Since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly being used in higher education computing classrooms across the United States. While scholars have looked at overall institutional guidance for the use of GenAI and reports have documented the response from schools in the form of broad guidance to instructors, we do not know what policies and practices instructors are actually adopting and how they are being communicated to students through course syllabi. To study instructors' policy guidance, we collected 98 computing course syllabi from 54 R1 institutions in the U.S. and studied the GenAI policies they adopted and the surrounding discourse. Our analysis shows that 1) most instructions related to GenAI use were as part of the academic integrity policy for the course and 2) most syllabi prohibited or restricted GenAI use, often warning students about the broader implications of using GenAI, e.g. lack of veracity, privacy risks, and hindering learning. Beyond this, there was wide variation in how instructors approached GenAI including a focus on how to cite GenAI use, conceptualizing GenAI as an assistant, often in an anthropomorphic manner, and mentioning specific GenAI tools for use. We discuss the implications of our findings and conclude with current best practices for instructors. 

   more » « less
5. Engineering Educators’ Perspectives on the Impact of Generative AI in Higher Education

   Dewan, U; Hingle, A; McDonald, N; Johri, A (April 2025, IEEE EDUCON 2025)

   The introduction of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been met with a mix of reactions by higher education institutions, ranging from consternation and resistance to wholehearted acceptance. Previous work has looked at the discourse and policies adopted by universities across the U.S. as well as educators, along with the inclusion of GenAI-related content and topics in higher education. Building on previous research, this study reports findings from a survey of engineering educators on their use of and perspectives toward generative AI. Specifically, we surveyed 98 educators from engineering, computer science, and education who participated in a workshop on GenAI in Engineering Education to learn about their perspectives on using these tools for teaching and research. We asked them about their use of and comfort with GenAI, their overall perspectives on GenAI, the challenges and potential harms of using it for teaching, learning, and research, and examined whether their approach to using and integrating GenAI in their classroom influenced their experiences with GenAI and perceptions of it. Consistent with other research in GenAI education, we found that while the majority of participants were somewhat familiar with GenAI, reported use varied considerably. We found that educators harbored mostly hopeful and positive views about the potential of GenAI. We also found that those who engaged more with their students on the topic of GenAI, both as communicators (those who spoke directly with their students) and as incorporators (those who included it in their syllabus), tend to be more positive about its contribution to learning, while also being more attuned to its potential abuses. These findings suggest that integrating and engaging with generative AI is essential to foster productive interactions between instructors and students around this technology. Our work ultimately contributes to the evolving discourse on GenAI use, integration, and avoidance within educational settings. Through exploratory quantitative research, we have identified specific areas for further investigation. 

   more » « less