Search for: All records

Despite the potential of generative AI (GenAI) design tools to enhance design processes, professionals often struggle to integrate AI into their workflows. Fundamental cognitive challenges include the need to specify all design criteria as distinct parameters upfront (intent formulation) and designers' reduced cognitive involvement in the design process due to cognitive offloading, which can lead to insufficient problem exploration, underspecification, and limited ability to evaluate outcomes. Motivated by these challenges, we envision novel metacognitive support agents that assist designers in working more reflectively with GenAI. To explore this vision, we conducted exploratory prototyping through a Wizard of Oz elicitation study with 20 mechanical designers probing multiple metacognitive support strategies. We found that agent-supported users created more feasible designs than non-supported users, with differing impacts between support strategies. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities and tradeoffs of metacognitive support agents and considerations for future AI-based design tools. 

There has been growing recognition of the crucial role users, especially those from marginalized groups, play in uncovering harmful algorithmic biases. However, it remains unclear how users’ identities and experiences might impact their rating of harmful biases. We present an online experiment (N=2,197) examining these factors: demographics, discrimination experiences, and social and technical knowledge. Participants were shown examples of image search results, including ones that previous literature has identified as biased against marginalized racial, gender, or sexual orientation groups. We found participants from marginalized gender or sexual orientation groups were more likely to rate the examples as more severely harmful. Belonging to marginalized races did not have a similar pattern. Additional factors affecting users’ ratings included discrimination experiences, and having friends or family belonging to marginalized demographics. A qualitative analysis offers insights into users' bias recognition, and why they see biases the way they do. We provide guidance for designing future methods to support effective user-driven auditing. 

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems introduce new possibilities for enhancing professionals’ workflows, enabling novel forms of human–AI co-creation. However, professionals often strug- gle to learn to work with GenAI systems effectively. While research has begun to explore the design of interfaces that support users in learning to co-create with GenAI, we lack systematic approaches to investigate the effectiveness of these supports. In this paper, we present a systematic approach for studying how to support learn- ing to co-create with GenAI systems, informed by methods and concepts from the learning sciences. Through an experimental case study, we demonstrate how our approach can be used to study and compare the impacts of different types of learning supports in the context of text-to-image GenAI models. Reflecting on these results, we discuss directions for future work aimed at improving interfaces for human–AI co-creation. 

An emerging body of research indicates that ineffective cross-functional collaboration – the interdisciplinary work done by industry practitioners across roles – represents a major barrier to addressing issues of fairness in AI design and development. In this research, we sought to better understand practitioners’ current practices and tactics to enact cross-functional collaboration for AI fairness, in order to identify opportunities to support more effective collaboration. We conducted a series of interviews and design workshops with 23 industry practitioners spanning various roles from 17 companies. We found that practitioners engaged in bridging work to overcome frictions in understanding, contextualization, and evaluation around AI fairness across roles. In addition, in organizational contexts with a lack of resources and incentives for fairness work, practitioners often piggybacked on existing requirements (e.g., for privacy assessments) and AI development norms (e.g., the use of quantitative evaluation metrics), although they worry that these tactics may be fundamentally compromised. Finally, we draw attention to the invisible labor that practitioners take on as part of this bridging and piggybacking work to enact interdisciplinary collaboration for fairness. We close by discussing opportunities for both FAccT researchers and AI practitioners to better support cross-functional collaboration for fairness in the design and development of AI systems.