Search for: All records

Safety-critical data, such as crash and near-crash records, are crucial to improving autonomous vehicle (AV) design and development. Sharing such data across AV companies, academic researchers, regulators, and the public can help make all AVs safer. However, AV companies rarely share safety-critical data externally. This paper aims to pinpoint why AV companies are reluctant to share safety-critical data, with an eye on how these barriers can inform new approaches to promote sharing. We interviewed twelve AV company employees who actively work with such data in their day-to-day work. Findings suggest two key, previously unknown barriers to data sharing: (1) Datasets inherently embed salient knowledge that is key to improving AV safety and are resource-intensive. Therefore, data sharing, even within a company, is fraught with politics. (2) Interviewees believed AV safety knowledge is private knowledge that brings competitive edges to their companies, rather than public knowledge for social good. We discuss the implications of these findings for incentivizing and enabling safety-critical AV data sharing, specifically, implications for new approaches to (1) debating and stratifying public and private AV safety knowledge, (2) innovating data tools and data sharing pipelines that enable easier sharing of public AV safety dataand knowledge; (3) offsetting costs of curating safety-critical data and incentivizing data sharing. 

An increasing number of studies apply tools powered by large language models (LLMs) to interview and conversation-based research, one of the most commonly used research methods in CSCW. This panel invites the CSCW community to critically debate the role of LLMs in reshaping interview-based methods. We aim to explore how these tools might (1) address persistent challenges in conversation-based research, such as limited scalability and participant engagement, (2) introduce novel methodological possibilities, and (3) surface additional practical, technical, and ethical concerns. The panel discussion will be grounded on the panelists’ prior experience applying LLMs to their own interview and conversation-based research. We ask whether LLMs offer unique advantages to enhance interview research, beyond automating certain aspects of the research process. Through this discussion, we encourage researchers to reflect on how applying LLM tools may require rethinking research design, conversational protocols, and ethical practices.