Search for: All records

Generative AI has begun to alter how we work, learn, communicate, and participate in online communities. How might our online communities be changed by generative AI? To start addressing this question, we focused on online community moderators' experiences with AI-generated content (AIGC). We performed fifteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with moderators of Reddit communities that restrict the use of AIGC. Our study finds that rules about AIGC are motivated by concerns about content quality, social dynamics, and governance challenges. Moderators fear that, without such rules, AIGC threatens to reduce their communities' utility and social value. We find that, despite the absence of foolproof tools for detecting AIGC, moderators were able to somewhat limit the disruption caused by this new phenomenon by working with their communities to clarify norms. However, moderators found enforcing AIGC restrictions challenging, and had to rely on time-intensive and inaccurate detection heuristics in their efforts. Our results highlight the importance of supporting community autonomy and self-determination in the face of this sudden technological change, and suggest potential design solutions that may help. 

Estimating exposure to information on a social network is a problem with important consequences for our society. The exposure estimation problem involves finding the fraction of people on the network who have been exposed to a piece of information (e.g., a URL of a news article on Facebook, a hashtag on Twitter). The exact value of exposure to a piece of information is determined by two features: the structure of the underlying social network and the set of people who shared the piece of information. Often, both features are not publicly available (i.e., access to the two features is limited only to the internal administrators of the platform) and are difficult to estimate from data. As a solution, we propose two methods to estimate the exposure to a piece of information in an unbiased manner: a vanilla method that is based on sampling the network uniformly and a method that non-uniformly samples the network motivated by the Friendship Paradox. We provide theoretical results that characterize the conditions (in terms of properties of the network and the piece of information) under which one method outperforms the other. Further, we outline extensions of the proposed methods to dynamic information cascades (where the exposure needs to be tracked in real time). We demonstrate the practical feasibility of the proposed methods via experiments on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets. 

How are Reddit communities responding to AI-generated content? We explored this question through a large-scale analysis of subreddit community rules and their change over time. We collected the metadata and community rules for over 300,000 public subreddits and measured the prevalence of rules governing AI. We labeled subreddits and AI rules according to existing taxonomies from the HCI literature and a new taxonomy we developed specific to AI rules. While rules about AI are still relatively uncommon, the number of subreddits with these rules more than doubled over the course of a year. AI rules are more common in larger subreddits and communities focused on art or celebrity topics, and less common in those focused on social support. These rules often focus on AI images and evoke, as justification, concerns about quality and authenticity. Overall, our findings illustrate the emergence of varied concerns about AI, in different community contexts. Platform designers and HCI researchers should heed these concerns if they hope to encourage community self-determination in the age of generative AI. We make our datasets public to enable future large-scale studies of community self-governance. 

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into a variety of writing tasks. While these tools can help people by generating ideas or producing higher quality work, like many other AI tools they may risk causing a variety of harms, disproportionately burdening historically marginalized groups. In this work, we introduce and evaluate perceptual harm, a term for the harm caused to users when others perceive or suspect them of using AI. We examined perceptual harms in three online experiments, each of which entailed human participants evaluating the profiles for fictional freelance writers. We asked participants whether they suspected the freelancers of using AI, the quality of their writing, and whether they should be hired. We found some support for perceptual harms against for certain demographic groups, but that perceptions of AI use negatively impacted writing evaluations and hiring outcomes across the board. 

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into everyday products and services, such as coding tools and writing assistants. As these embedded AI applications are deployed globally, there is a growing concern that the AI models underlying these applications prioritize Western values. This paper investigates what happens when a Western-centric AI model provides writing suggestions to users from a different cultural background. We conducted a cross-cultural controlled experiment with 118 participants from India and the United States who completed culturally grounded writing tasks with and without AI suggestions. Our analysis reveals that AI provided greater efficiency gains for Americans compared to Indians. Moreover, AI suggestions led Indian participants to adopt Western writing styles, altering not just what is written but also how it is written. These findings show that Western-centric AI models homogenize writing toward Western norms, diminishing nuances that differentiate cultural expression. 

Given large language models’ (LLMs) increasing integration into workplace software, it is important to examine how biases in the models may impact workers. For example, stylistic biases in the language suggested by LLMs may cause feelings of alienation and result in increased labor for individuals or groups whose style does not match. We examine how such writer-style bias impacts inclusion, control, and ownership over the work when co-writing with LLMs. In an online experiment, participants wrote hypothetical job promotion requests using either hesitant or self-assured auto-complete suggestions from an LLM and reported their subsequent perceptions. We found that the style of the AI model did not impact perceived inclusion. However, individuals with higher perceived inclusion did perceive greater agency and ownership, an effect more strongly impacting participants of minoritized genders. Feelings of inclusion mitigated a loss of control and agency when accepting more AI suggestions. 

AI technologies such as Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to make suggestions to autocomplete text as people write. Can these suggestions impact people’s writing and attitudes? In two large-scale preregistered experiments (N=2,582), we expose participants who are writing about important societal issues to biased AI-generated suggestions. The attitudes participants expressed in their writing and in a post-task survey converged towards the AI’s position. Yet, a majority of participants were unaware of the AI suggestions’ bias and their influence. Further, awareness of the task or of the AI’s bias, e.g. warning participants about potential bias before or after exposure to the treatment, did not mitigate the influence effect. Moreover, the AI’s influence is not fully explained by the additional information provided by the suggestions. 

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is already widely used in daily communication, but despite concerns about AI’s negative effects on society the social consequences of using it to communicate remain largely unexplored. We investigate the social consequences of one of the most pervasive AI applications, algorithmic response suggestions (“smart replies”), which are used to send billions of messages each day. Two randomized experiments provide evidence that these types of algorithmic recommender systems change how people interact with and perceive one another in both pro-social and anti-social ways. We find that using algorithmic responses changes language and social relationships. More specifically, it increases communication speed, use of positive emotional language, and conversation partners evaluate each other as closer and more cooperative. However, consistent with common assumptions about the adverse effects of AI, people are evaluated more negatively if they are suspected to be using algorithmic responses. Thus, even though AI can increase the speed of communication and improve interpersonal perceptions, the prevailing anti-social connotations of AI undermine these potential benefits if used overtly.