Artificial Intelligence for Social Good (AI4SG) is a growing area that explores AI’s potential to address social issues, such as public health. Yet prior work has shown limited evidence of its tangible benefits for intended communities, and projects frequently face real-world deployment and sustainability challenges. While existing HCI literature on AI4SG initiatives primarily focuses on the mechanisms of funded projects and their outcomes, much less attention has been given to the upstream funding agendas that influence project approaches. In this work, we conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 35 funding documents, representing about $410 million USD in total investments. We uncovered a spectrum of conceptual framings of AI4SG and the approaches that funding rhetoric promoted: from biasing towards technology capacities (more techno-centric) to emphasizing contextual understanding of the social problems at hand alongside technology capacities (more balanced). Drawing on our findings on how funding documents construct AI4SG, we offer recommendations for funders to embed more balanced approaches in future funding call designs. We further discuss implications for how the HCI community can positively shape AI4SG funding design processes.

A growing body of literature has focused on understanding and addressing workplace AI design failures. However, past work has largely overlooked the role of occupational devaluation in shaping the dynamics of AI development and deployment. In this paper, we examine the case of feminized labor: a class of devalued occupations historically misnomered as ``women's work,'' such as social work, K-12 teaching, and home healthcare. Drawing on literature on AI deployments in feminized labor contexts, we conceptualize AI Failure Loops: a set of interwoven, socio-technical failures that help explain how the systemic devaluation of workers' expertise negatively impacts, and is impacted by, AI design, evaluation, and governance practices. These failures demonstrate how misjudgments on the automatability of workers' skills can lead to AI deployments that fail to bring value and, instead, further diminish the visibility of workers' expertise. We discuss research and design implications for workplace AI, especially for devalued occupations.

The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts---such as Model Cards, Transparency Notes, and Data Cards---to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. While originally designed to scaffold and document AI development processes in technology companies, these artifacts are becoming central components of regulatory compliance under recent regulations such as the EU AI Act. Much of the existing literature has focussed primarily on the design of new RAI artifacts, or an examination of their use by practitioners within technology companies. However, as RAI artifacts begin to play key roles in enabling external oversight, it becomes critical to understand how stakeholders---particularly stakeholders situated outside of technology companies who govern and audit industry AI deployments---perceive the efficacy of RAI artifacts. In this study, we conduct semi-structured interviews and design activities with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. While participants believe that RAI artifacts are a valuable contribution to the RAI ecosystem, many have concerns around their potential unintended and longer-term impacts on actors outside of technology companies (e.g., downstream end-users, policymakers, civil society stakeholders). We organized these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry, impeding civil society and legal stakeholders' ability to protect downstream end-users from potential AI harms. Participants envision how structural changes, along with changes in how RAI artifacts are designed, used, and governed, could help re-direct the role and impacts of artifacts in the RAI ecosystem. Drawing on these findings, we discuss research and policy implications for RAI artifacts.

Public sector agencies are rapidly deploying AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions in real-world contexts like child welfare, criminal justice, and public health. A growing body of work documents how these AI systems often fail to improve services in practice. These failures can often be traced to decisions made during the early stages of AI ideation and design, such as problem formulation. However, today, we lack systematic processes to support effective, early-stage decision-making about whether and under what conditions to move forward with a proposed AI project. To understand how to scaffold such processes in real-world settings, we worked with public sector agency leaders, AI developers, frontline workers, and community advocates across four public sector agencies and three community advocacy groups in the United States. Through an iterative co-design process, we created the Situate AI Guidebook: a structured process centered around a set of deliberation questions to scaffold conversations around (1) goals and intended use for a proposed AI system, (2) societal and legal considerations, (3) data and modeling constraints, and (4) organizational governance factors. We discuss how the guidebook’s design is informed by participants’ challenges, needs, and desires for improved deliberation processes. We further elaborate on implications for designing responsible AI toolkits in collaboration with public sector agency stakeholders and opportunities for future work to expand upon the guidebook. This design approach can be more broadly adopted to support the co-creation of responsible AI toolkits that scaffold key decision-making processes surrounding the use of AI in the public sector and beyond.

As public sector agencies rapidly introduce new AI tools in high-stakes domains like social services, it becomes critical to understand how decisions to adopt these tools are made in practice. We borrow from the anthropological practice to "study up" those in positions of power, and reorient our study of public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about the role that AI tools will play in their agency. Through semi-structured interviews and design activities with 16 agency decision-makers, we examine how decisions about AI design and adoption are influenced by their interactions with and assumptions about other actors within these agencies (e.g., frontline workers and agency leaders), as well as those above (legal systems and contracted companies), and below (impacted communities). By centering these networks of power relations, our findings shed light on how infrastructural, legal, and social factors create barriers and disincentives to the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in decisions about AI design and adoption. Agency decision-makers desired more practical support for stakeholder involvement around public sector AI to help overcome the knowledge and power differentials they perceived between them and other stakeholders (e.g., frontline workers and impacted community members). Building on these findings, we discuss implications for future research and policy around actualizing participatory AI approaches in public sector contexts.

With the heightened digitization of the workplace, alongside the rise of remote and hybrid work prompted by the pandemic, there is growing corporate interest in using passive sensing technologies for workplace wellbeing. Existing research on these technologies often focus on understanding or improving interactions between an individual user and the technology. Workplace settings can, however, introduce a range of complexities that challenge the potential impact and in-practice desirability of wellbeing sensing technologies. Today, there is an inadequate empirical understanding of how everyday workers---including those who are impacted by, and impact the deployment of workplace technologies--envision its broader socio-ecological impacts. In this study, we conduct storyboard-driven interviews with 33 participants across three stakeholder groups: organizational governors, AI builders, and worker data subjects. Overall, our findings surface how workers envisioned wellbeing sensing technologies may lead to cascading impacts on their broader organizational culture, interpersonal relationships with colleagues, and individual day-to-day lives. Participants anticipated harms arising from ambiguity and misalignment around scaled notions of "worker wellbeing,'' underlying technical limitations to workplace-situated sensing, and assumptions regarding how social structures and relationships may shape the impacts and use of these technologies. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for designing worker-centered data-driven wellbeing technologies.

Data-driven AI systems are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in complex, social contexts, such as social work or legal practice. Yet, most existing design knowledge regarding how to best support AI-augmented decision-making comes from studies in comparatively well-defined settings. In this paper, we present findings from design interviews with 12 social workers who use an algorithmic decision support tool (ADS) to assist their day-to-day child maltreatment screening decisions. We generated a range of design concepts, each envisioning different ways of redesigning or augmenting the ADS interface. Overall, workers desired ways to understand the risk score and incorporate contextual knowledge, which move beyond existing notions of AI interpretability. Conversations around our design concepts also surfaced more fundamental concerns around the assumptions underlying statistical prediction, such as inference based on similar historical cases and statistical notions of uncertainty. Based on our findings, we discuss how ADS may be better designed to support the roles of human decision-makers in social decision-making contexts.

Machine learning tools have been deployed in various contexts to support human decision-making, in the hope that human-algorithm collaboration can improve decision quality. However, the question of whether such collaborations reduce or exacerbate biases in decision-making remains underexplored. In this work, we conducted a mixed-methods study, analyzing child welfare call screen workers’ decision-making over a span of four years, and interviewing them on how they incorporate algorithmic predictions into their decision-making process. Our data analysis shows that, compared to the algorithm alone, workers reduced the disparity in screen-in rate between Black and white children from 20% to 9%. Our qualitative data show that workers achieved this by making holistic risk assessments and adjusting for the algorithm’s limitations. Our analyses also show more nuanced results about how human-algorithm collaboration affects prediction accuracy, and how to measure these effects. These results shed light on potential mechanisms for improving human-algorithm collaboration in high-risk decision-making contexts.

AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers’ experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers’ reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS’s capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making.

Transgender people are marginalized, facing specific privacy concerns and high risk of online and offline harassment, discrimination, and violence. They also benefit tremendously from technology. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 transgender people from 3 U.S. cities about their computer security and privacy experiences broadly construed. Participants frequently returned to themes of activism and prosocial behavior, such as protest organization, political speech, and role-modeling transgender identities, so we focus our analysis on these themes. We identify several prominent risk models related to visibility, luck, and identity that participants used to analyze their own risk profiles, often as distinct or extreme. These risk perceptions may heavily influence transgender people's defensive behaviors and self-efficacy, jeopardizing their ability to defend themselves or gain technology's benefits. We articulate design lessons emerging from these ideas, contrasting and relating them to lessons about other marginalized groups whenever possible.