AI impact assessments often stress near-term risks because human judgment degrades over longer horizons, exemplifying the Collingridge dilemma: foresight is most needed when knowledge is scarcest. To address long-term systemic risks, we introduce a scalable approach that simulates in-silico agents using the foresight method of the Futures Wheel. We applied it to four AI uses spanning Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Chatbot Companion (TRL 9), AI Toy (TRL 7), Griefbot (TRL 5), and Death App (TRL 2). Across 30 agent runs per use, agents produced 86–110 consequences, condensed into 27–47 unique risks. To benchmark the agent outputs against human perspectives, we collected evaluations from 290 domain experts and 7 leaders, and conducted Futures Wheel sessions with 42 experts and 42 laypeople. Agents generated many systemic consequences. Compared with these outputs, experts identified fewer risks, typically less systemic but judged more likely, whereas laypeople surfaced more emotionally salient concerns that were generally less systemic. We propose a hybrid foresight workflow, wherein agents broaden systemic coverage, and humans provide contextual grounding.

Risk reporting is essential for documenting AI models, yet only 14% of model cards mention risks, out of which 96% copying content from a small set of cards, leading to a lack of actionable insights. Existing proposals for improving model cards do not resolve these issues. To address this, we introduce RiskRAG, a Retrieval Augmented Generation based risk reporting solution guided by five design requirements we identified from literature, and co-design with 16 developers: identifying diverse model-specific risks, clearly presenting and prioritizing them, contextualizing for real-world uses, and offering actionable mitigation strategies. Drawing from 450K model cards and 600 real-world incidents, RiskRAG pre-populates contextualized risk reports. A preliminary study with 50 developers showed that they preferred RiskRAG over standard model cards, as it better met all the design requirements. A final study with 38 developers, 40 designers, and 37 media professionals showed that RiskRAG improved their way of selecting the AI model for a specific application, encouraging a more careful and deliberative decision-making. The RiskRAG project page is accessible at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/card.

Constitutional AI (CAI) guides LLM behavior using constitutions, but identifying which principles are most effective for model alignment remains an open challenge.We introduce the C3AI framework (Crafting Constitutions for CAI models), which serves two key functions: (1) selecting and structuring principles to form effective constitutions before fine-tuning; and (2) evaluating whether finetuned CAI models follow these principles in practice.By analyzing principles from AI and psychology, we found that positively framed, behavior-based principles align more closely with human preferences than negatively framed or trait-based principles.In a safety alignment use case, we applied a graph-based principle selection method to refine an existing CAI constitution, improving safety measures while maintaining strong general reasoning capabilities.Interestingly, fine-tuned CAI models performed well on negatively framed principles but struggled with positively framed ones, in contrast to our human alignment results.This highlights a potential gap between principle design and model adherence.Overall, C3AI provides a structured and scalable approach to both crafting and evaluating CAI constitutions. CCS Concepts•

Communicating the risks and benefits of AI is important for regulation and public understanding. Yet current methods such as technical reports often exclude people without technical expertise. Drawing on HCI research, we developed an Impact Assessment Card to present this information more clearly. We held three focus groups with a total of 12 participants who helped identify design requirements and create early versions of the card. We then tested a refined version in an online study with 235 participants, including AI developers, compliance experts, and members of the public selected to reflect the U.S. population by age, sex, and race. Participants used either the card or a full impact assessment report to write an email supporting or opposing a proposed AI system. The card led to faster task completion and higher-quality emails across all groups. We discuss how design choices can improve accessibility and support AI governance. Examples of cards are available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/impact-card/

In the evolving landscape of AI regulation, it is crucial for companies to conduct impact assessments and document their compliance through comprehensive reports. However, current reports lack grounding in regulations and often focus on specific aspects like privacy in relation to AI systems, without addressing the real-world uses of these systems. Moreover, there is no systematic effort to design and evaluate these reports with both AI practitioners and AI compliance experts. To address this gap, we conducted an iterative co-design process with 14 AI practitioners and 6 AI compliance experts and proposed a template for impact assessment reports grounded in the EU AI Act, NIST's AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO 42001 AI Management System. We evaluated the template by producing an impact assessment report for an AI-based meeting companion at a major tech company. A user study with 8 AI practitioners from the same company and 5 AI compliance experts from industry and academia revealed that our template effectively provides necessary information for impact assessments and documents the broad impacts of AI systems. Participants envisioned using the template not only at the pre-deployment stage for compliance but also as a tool to guide the design stage of AI uses.

Responsible AI design is increasingly seen as an imperative by both AI developers and AI compliance experts. One of the key tasks is envisioning AI technology uses and risks. Recent studies on the model and data cards reveal that AI practitioners struggle with this task due to its inherently challenging nature. Here, we demonstrate that leveraging a Large Language Model (LLM) can support AI practitioners in this task by enabling reflexivity, brainstorming, and deliberation, especially in the early design stages of the AI development process. We developed an LLM framework, ExploreGen, which generates realistic and varied uses of AI technology, including those overlooked by research, and classifies their risk level based on the EU AI Act regulation. We evaluated our framework using the case of Facial Recognition and Analysis technology in nine user studies with 25 AI practitioners. Our findings show that ExploreGen is helpful to both developers and compliance experts. They rated the uses as realistic and their risk classification as accurate (94.5%). Moreover, while unfamiliar with many of the uses, they rated them as having high adoption potential and transformational impact.

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into mobile and wearables offers numerous benefits at individual, societal, and environmental levels. Yet, it also spotlights concerns over emerging risks. Traditional assessments of risks and benefits have been sporadic, and often require costly expert analysis. We developed a semi-automatic method that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify AI uses in mobile and wearables, classify their risks based on the EU AI Act, and determine their benefits that align with globally recognized long-term sustainable development goals; a manual validation of our method by two experts in mobile and wearable technologies, a legal and compliance expert, and a cohort of nine individuals with legal backgrounds who were recruited from Prolific, confirmed its accuracy to be over 85%. We uncovered that specific applications of mobile computing hold significant potential in improving well-being, safety, and social equality. However, these promising uses are linked to risks involving sensitive data, vulnerable groups, and automated decision-making. To avoid rejecting these risky yet impactful mobile and wearable uses, we propose a risk assessment checklist for the Mobile HCI community.

Many guidelines for responsible AI have been suggested to help AI practitioners in the development of ethical and responsible AI systems. However, these guidelines are often neither grounded in regulation nor usable by different roles, from developers to decision makers. To bridge this gap, we developed a four-step method to generate a list of responsible AI guidelines; these steps are: (1) manual coding of 17 papers on responsible AI; (2) compiling an initial catalog of responsible AI guidelines; (3) refining the catalog through interviews and expert panels; and (4) finalizing the catalog. To evaluate the resulting 22 guidelines, we incorporated them into an interactive tool and assessed them in a user study with 14 AI researchers, engineers, designers, and managers from a large technology company. Through interviews with these practitioners, we found that the guidelines were grounded in current regulations and usable across roles, encouraging self-reflection on ethical considerations at early stages of development. This significantly contributes to the concept of 'Responsible AI by Design'- a design-first approach that embeds responsible AI values throughout the development lifecycle and across various business roles.

As AI permeates industries and reaches the general public, the significance of responsible AI (RAI) principles becomes increasingly vital. This study offers valuable insights from 27 Earth Observation (EO) experts in 11 countries, unveiling diverse attitudes towards RAI principles and nuanced perspectives across genders and age groups. It highlights the variation in definitions and interpretations of core principles such as fairness, reliability, privacy, transparency, accountability, and sustainability. Moreover, the study identifies RAI concerns specific to the EO domain, emphasizing the need to integrate domain knowledge and effectively communicate issues of inequality and failure use cases. These findings contribute to a preliminary understanding of RAI attitudes in the AI for EO context. Future research should involve a larger pool of experts and investigate the attitudes of EO users and the general public to complement these initial findings.

A biological understanding is key for managing medical conditions, yet psychological and social aspects matter too. The main problem is that these two aspects are hard to quantify and inherently difficult to communicate. To quantify psychological aspects, this work mined around half a million Reddit posts in the sub-communities specialised in 14 medical conditions, and it did so with a new deep-learning framework. In so doing, it was able to associate mentions of medical conditions with those of emotions. To then quantify social aspects, this work designed a probabilistic approach that mines open prescription data from the National Health Service in England to compute the prevalence of drug prescriptions, and to relate such a prevalence to census data. To finally visually communicate each medical condition's biological, psychological, and social aspects through storytelling, we designed a narrative-style layered Martini Glass visualization. In a user study involving 52 participants, after interacting with our visualization, a considerable number of them changed their mind on previously held opinions: 10% gave more importance to the psychological aspects of medical conditions, and 27% were more favourable to the use of social media data in healthcare, suggesting the importance of persuasive elements in interactive visualizations.