In the future of work discourse, AI is touted as the ultimate productivity amplifier. Yet, beneath the efficiency gains lie subtle erosions of human expertise and agency. This paper shifts focus from the future of work to the future of workers by navigating the AI-as-Amplifier Paradox: AI’s dual role as enhancer and eroder, simultaneously strengthening performance while eroding underlying expertise. We present a year-long study on the longitudinal use of AI in a high-stakes workplace among cancer specialists. Initial operational gains hid “intuition rust”: the gradual dulling of expert judgment. These asymptomatic effects evolved into chronic harms, such as skill atrophy and identity commoditization. Building on these findings, we offer a framework for dignified Human-AI interaction co-constructed with professional knowledge workers facing AI-induced skill erosion without traditional labor protections. The framework operationalizes sociotechnical immunity through dual-purpose mechanisms that serve institutional quality goals while building worker power to detect, contain, and recover from skill erosion, and preserve human identity. Evaluated across healthcare and software engineering, our work takes a foundational step toward dignified human-AI interaction futures by balancing productivity with the preservation of human expertise.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds tremendous potential but also poses consequential risks. Regulation frameworks like the EU AI Act aim to mitigate these risks, yet organizations struggle to understand and operationalize Responsible AI (RAI). We introduce the RAI Organizational Maturity (RAI-OM) framework as an initial step towards a RAI maturity model to highlight the many factors that influence an organization's RAI maturity. Developed through in-depth qualitative interviews and co-design sessions with 90 RAI experts, the RAI-OM framework consists of 24 dimensions grouped into three main categories: Organizational Foundations, Team Approach, and RAI Practices. Our findings also provide further evidence for the interdependent nature of RAI's organizational factors, the import of collaboration for mature RAI, and the need to start RAI early in the AI lifecyle. Researchers and practitioners can use the RAI-OM framework and our research findings to not only understand the different moving parts in RAI's complex organizational machinery, but also address organizational barriers to RAI, unpack the different types of collaborations needed for mature RAI, and support RAI's articulation work and process.

Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions. Understanding who opens the black-box of AI is just as important as opening it. We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups—people with and without AI background—perceive different types of AI explanations. Quantitatively, we share user perceptions along five dimensions. Qualitatively, we describe how AI background can influence interpretations, elucidating the differences through lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design. Carrying critical implications for the field of XAI, our findings showcase how AI generated explanations can have negative consequences despite best intentions and how that could lead to harmful manipulation of trust. We propose design interventions to mitigate them.

Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. While black-boxing AI systems can make the user experience seamless, hiding the seams risks disempowering users to mitigate fallouts from AI mistakes. Instead of hiding these AI imperfections, can we leverage them to help the user? While Explainable AI (XAI) has predominantly tackled algorithmic opaqueness, we propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing and leveraging sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We introduce the concept of Seamful XAI by (1) conceptually transferring "seams" to the AI context and (2) developing a design process that helps stakeholders anticipate and design with seams. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users, using a scenario-based co-design activity informed by real-world use cases. We found that the Seamful XAI design process helped users foresee AI harms, identify underlying reasons (seams), locate them in the AI's lifecycle, learn how to leverage seamful information to improve XAI and user agency. We share empirical insights, implications, and reflections on how this process can help practitioners anticipate and craft seams in AI, how seamfulness can improve explainability, empower end-users, and facilitate Responsible AI.

The trustworthiness of data science systems in applied and real-world settings emerges from the resolution of specific tensions through situated, pragmatic, and ongoing forms of work. Drawing on research in CSCW, critical data studies, and history and sociology of science, and six months of immersive ethnographic fieldwork with a corporate data science team, we describe four common tensions in applied data science work: (un)equivocal numbers, (counter)intuitive knowledge, (in)credible data, and (in)scrutable models. We show how organizational actors establish and re-negotiate trust under messy and uncertain analytic conditions through practices of skepticism, assessment, and credibility. Highlighting the collaborative and heterogeneous nature of real-world data science, we show how the management of trust in applied corporate data science settings depends not only on pre-processing and quantification, but also on negotiation and translation. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for data science research and practice, both within and beyond CSCW.

Learning to see through data is central to contemporary forms of algorithmic knowledge production. While often represented as a mechanical application of rules, making algorithms work with data requires a great deal of situated work. This paper examines how the often-divergent demands of mechanization and discretion manifest in data analytic learning environments. Drawing on research in CSCW and the social sciences, and ethnographic fieldwork in two data learning environments, we show how an algorithm's application is seen sometimes as a mechanical sequence of rules and at other times as an array of situated decisions. Casting data analytics as a rule-based (rather than rule-bound) practice, we show that effective data vision requires would-be analysts to straddle the competing demands of formal abstraction and empirical contingency. We conclude by discussing how the notion of data vision can help better leverage the role of human work in data analytic learning, research, and practice.