Representation bias is one of the most common types of biases in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, causing AI models to perform poorly on underrepresented data segments. Although AI practitioners use various methods to reduce representation bias, their effectiveness is often constrained by insufficient domain knowledge in the debiasing process. To address this gap, this paper introduces a set of generic design guidelines for effectively involving domain experts in representation debiasing. We instantiated our proposed guidelines in a healthcare-focused application and evaluated them through a comprehensive mixed-methods user study with 35 healthcare experts. Our findings show that involving domain experts can reduce representation bias without compromising model accuracy. Based on our findings, we also offer recommendations for developers to build robust debiasing systems guided by our generic design guidelines, ensuring more effective inclusion of domain experts in the debiasing process.
Generative AI has the potential to assist people with completing various tasks, but increased productivity is not guaranteed due to challenges such as uncertainty in output quality and unclear processing time. Through an online crowdsourced experiment (N=508), leveraging a “paint by numbers” task to simulate properties of GenAI assistance, we explore how, and how well, users make decisions on whether to use or not use automation to maximize their productivity given varying waiting times and output quality. We observed gaps between user’s actual choices and their optimal choices and characterized these gaps as the “gulf of impatience” and the “gulf of overreliance”. We also distilled strategies that participants adopted when making their decisions. We discuss design considerations in supporting users to make more informed decisions when interacting with GenAI tools and make these tools more useful for improving users’ task performance, productivity and satisfaction.
Breakthroughs in generative AI (GenAI) have fueled debates concerning the artistic and legal status of AI-generated creations. We investigate laypeople's perceptions (N=432) of AI-generated art through the lens of copyright law. We study lay judgments of GenAI images concerning several copyright-related factors and capture people's opinions of who should be the authors and rights-holders of AI-generated images. To do so, we held an incentivized AI art competition in which some participants used a GenAI model to create art while others evaluated these images. We find that participants believe creativity and effort, but not skills, are needed to create AI-generated art. Participants were most likely to attribute authorship and copyright to the AI model's users and to the artists whose creations were used for training. We find evidence of egocentric effects: participants favored their own art with respect to quality, creativity, and effort---particularly when these assessments determined real monetary awards.
Social anxiety (SA) has become increasingly prevalent. Traditional coping strategies often face accessibility challenges. Generative AI (GenAI), known for their knowledgeable and conversational capabilities, are emerging as alternative tools for mental well-being. With the increased integration of GenAI, it is important to examine individuals' attitudes and trust in GenAI chatbots' support for SA. Through a mixed-method approach that involved surveys (n = 159) and interviews (n = 17), we found that individuals with severe symptoms tended to trust and embrace GenAI chatbots more readily, valuing their non-judgmental support and perceived emotional comprehension. However, those with milder symptoms prioritized technical reliability. We identified factors influencing trust, such as GenAI chatbots' ability to generate empathetic responses and its context-sensitive limitations, which were particularly important among individuals with SA. We also discuss the design implications and use of GenAI chatbots in fostering cognitive and emotional trust, with practical and design considerations.
The use of creative writing as training data for large language models (LLMs) is highly contentious and many writers have expressed outrage at the use of their work without consent or compensation. In this paper, we seek to understand how creative writers reason about the real or hypothetical use of their writing as training data. We interviewed 33 writers with variation across genre, method of publishing, degree of professionalization, and attitudes toward and engagement with LLMs. We report on core principles that writers express (support of the creative chain, respect for writers and writing, and the human element of creativity) and how these principles can be at odds with their realistic expectations of the world (a lack of control, industry-scale impacts, and interpretation of scale). Collectively these findings demonstrate that writers have a nuanced understanding of LLMs and are more concerned with power imbalances than the technology itself.
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.
The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) in knowledge workflows raises questions about its impact on critical thinking skills and practices. We survey 319 knowledge workers to investigate 1) when and how they perceive the enaction of critical thinking when using GenAI, and 2) when and why GenAI affects their effort to do so. Participants shared 936 first-hand examples of using GenAI in work tasks. Quantitatively, when considering both task- and user-specific factors, a user's task-specific self-confidence and confidence in GenAI are predictive of whether critical thinking is enacted and the effort of doing so in GenAI-assisted tasks. Specifically, higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking. Qualitatively, GenAI shifts the nature of critical thinking toward information verification, response integration, and task stewardship. Our insights reveal new design challenges and opportunities for developing GenAI tools for knowledge work.