Search for: All records

Large language models (LLMs) can underpin AI assistants that help users with everyday tasks, such as by making recommendations or performing basic computation. Despite AI assistants’ promise, little is known about the implicit values these assistants display while completing subjective everyday tasks. Humans may consider values like environmentalism, charity, and diversity. To what extent do LLMs exhibit these values in completing everyday tasks? How do they compare with humans? We answer these questions by auditing how six popular LLMs complete 30 everyday tasks, comparing LLMs to each other and to 100 human crowdworkers from the US. We find LLMs often do not align with humans, nor with other LLMs, in the implicit values exhibited. 

To counteract the ads and third-party tracking ubiquitous on the web, users turn to blocking tools---ad-blocking and tracking-protection browser extensions and built-in features. Unfortunately, blocking tools can cause non-ad, non-tracking elements of a website to degrade or fail, a phenomenon termed breakage. Examples include missing images, non-functional buttons, and pages failing to load. While the literature frequently discusses breakage, prior work has not systematically mapped and disambiguated the spectrum of user experiences subsumed under "breakage," nor sought to understand how users experience, prioritize, and attempt to fix breakage. We fill these gaps. First, through qualitative analysis of 18,932 extension-store reviews and GitHub issue reports for ten popular blocking tools, we developed novel taxonomies of 38 specific types of breakage and 15 associated mitigation strategies. To understand subjective experiences of breakage, we then conducted a 95-participant survey. Nearly all participants had experienced various types of breakage, and they employed an array of strategies of variable effectiveness in response to specific types of breakage in specific contexts. Unfortunately, participants rarely notified anyone who could fix the root causes. We discuss how our taxonomies and results can improve the comprehensiveness and prioritization of ongoing attempts to automatically detect and fix breakage.