Search for: All records

We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value that large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances—dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation—that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models that, if explicitly designed for, can support the process of design. Through design fiction, we then imagine a future interface as a diegetic prototype, the story of Squirrel Game, that demonstrates each of our three affordances in a realistic usage scenario. Our design process, terminology, and diagrams aim to contribute to future discussions about the relative affordances of AI technology with regard to collaborating with human designers. 

Policymakers have established that the ability to contest decisions made by or with algorithms is core to responsible artificial intelligence (AI). However, there has been a disconnect between research on contestability of algorithms, and what the situated practice of contestation looks like in contexts across the world, especially amongst communities on the margins. We address this gap through a qualitative study of follow-up and contestation in accessing public services for land ownership in rural India and affordable housing in the urban United States. We find there are significant barriers to exercising rights and contesting decisions, which intermediaries like NGO workers or lawyers work with communities to address. We draw on the notion of accompaniment in global health to highlight the open-ended work required to support people in navigating violent social systems. We discuss the implications of our findings for key aspects of contestability, including building capacity for contestation, human review, and the role of explanations. We also discuss how sociotechnical systems of algorithmic decision-making can embody accompaniment by taking on a higher burden of preventing denials and enabling contestation. 

LGBTQ+ individuals are increasingly turning to chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) to meet their mental health needs. However, little research has explored whether these chatbots can adequately and safely provide tailored support for this demographic. We interviewed 18 LGBTQ+ and 13 non-LGBTQ+ participants about their experiences with LLM-based chatbots for mental health needs. LGBTQ+ participants relied on these chatbots for mental health support, likely due to an absence of support in real life. Notably, while LLMs offer prompt support, they frequently fall short in grasping the nuances of LGBTQ-specific challenges. Although fine-tuning LLMs to address LGBTQ+ needs can be a step in the right direction, it isn’t the panacea. The deeper issue is entrenched in societal discrimination. Consequently, we call on future researchers and designers to look beyond mere technical refinements and advocate for holistic strategies that confront and counteract the societal biases burdening the LGBTQ+ community. 

Readers find text difficult to consume for many reasons. Summarization can address some of these difficulties, but introduce others, such as omitting, misrepresenting, or hallucinating information, which can be hard for a reader to notice. One approach to addressing this problem is to instead modify how the original text is rendered to make important information more salient. We introduce Grammar-Preserving Text Saliency Modulation (GP-TSM), a text rendering method with a novel means of identifying what to de-emphasize. Specifically, GP-TSM uses a recursive sentence compression method to identify successive levels of detail beyond the core meaning of a passage, which are de-emphasized by rendering words in successively lighter but still legible gray text. In a lab study (n=18), participants preferred GP-TSM over pre-existing word-level text rendering methods and were able to answer GRE reading comprehension questions more efficiently. 

The usage of Rational Speech Acts (RSA) framework has been successful in building pragmatic program synthesizers that return programs which, in addition to being logically consistent with user-generated examples, account for the fact that a user chooses their examples informatively. We present a general method of amortizing the slow, exact RSA synthesizer. Our method first compiles a communication dataset of partially ranked programs by querying the exact RSA synthesizer. It then distills a global ranking -- a single, total ordering of all programs, to approximate the partial rankings from this dataset. This global ranking is then used at inference time to rank multiple logically consistent candidate programs generated from a fast, non-pragmatic synthesizer. Experiments on two program synthesis domains using our ranking method resulted in orders of magnitudes of speed ups compared to the exact RSA synthesizer, while being more accurate than a non-pragmatic synthesizer. Finally, we prove that in the special case of synthesis from a single example, this approximation is exact. 

Misinformation poses a threat to democracy and to people’s health. Reliability criteria for news websites can help people identify misinformation. But despite their importance, there has been no empirically substantiated list of criteria for distinguishing reliable from unreliable news websites. We identify reliability criteria, describe how they are applied in practice, and compare them to prior work. Based on our analysis, we distinguish between manipulable and less manipulable criteria and compare politically diverse laypeople as end-users and journalists as expert users. We discuss 11 widely recognized criteria, including the following 6 criteria that are difficult to manipulate: content, political alignment, authors, professional standards, what sources are used, and a website’s reputation. Finally, we describe how technology may be able to support people in applying these criteria in practice to assess the reliability of websites. 

In settings where users both need high accuracy and are time-pressured, such as doctors working in emergency rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases decision accuracy and reduces decision-making time. Current literature focusses on how users interact with AI assistance when there is no time pressure, finding that different AI assistances have different benefits: some can reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. The precise benefit can depend on both the user and task. In time-pressured scenarios, adapting when we show AI assistance is especially important: relying on the AI assistance can save time, and can therefore be beneficial when the AI is likely to be right. We would ideally adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the task and of the user) in order to best trade off accuracy and time. We introduce a study where users have to answer a series of logic puzzles. We find that time pressure affects how users use different AI assistances, making some assistances more beneficial than others when compared to no-time-pressure settings. We also find that a user’s overreliance rate is a key predictor of their behaviour: overreliers and not-overreliers use different AI assistance types differently. We find marginal correlations between a user’s overreliance rate (which is related to the user’s trust in AI recommendations) and their personality traits (Big Five Personality traits). Overall, our work suggests that AI assistances have different accuracy-time tradeoffs when people are under time pressure compared to no time pressure, and we explore how we might adapt AI assistances in this setting.