Despite their increasing capabilities, text-to-image generative AI systems are known to produce biased, offensive, and otherwise problematic outputs. While recent advancements have supported testing and auditing of generative AI, existing auditing methods still face challenges in supporting effectively explore the vast space of AI-generated outputs in a structured way. To address this gap, we conducted formative studies with five AI auditors and synthesized five design goals for supporting systematic AI audits. Based on these insights, we developed Vipera, an interactive auditing interface that employs multiple visual cues including a scene graph to facilitate image sensemaking and inspire auditors to explore and hierarchically organize the auditing criteria. Additionally, Vipera leverages LLM-powered suggestions to facilitate exploration of unexplored auditing directions. Through a controlled experiment with 24 participants experienced in AI auditing, we demonstrate Vipera's effectiveness in helping auditors navigate large AI output spaces and organize their analyses while engaging with diverse criteria.

Responsible AI (RAI) tools—checklists, templates, and governance processes—often engage RAI champions, individuals intrinsically motivated to advocate ethical practices, but fail to reach non-champions, who frequently dismiss them as bureaucratic tasks. To explore this gap, we shadowed meetings and interviewed data scientists at an organization, finding that practitioners perceived RAI as irrelevant to their work. Building on these insights and theoretical foundations, we derived design principles for engaging non-champions, and introduced sticky stories—narratives of unexpected ML harms designed to be concrete, severe, surprising, diverse, and relevant, unlike widely circulated media to which practitioners are desensitized. Using a compound AI system, we generated and evaluated sticky stories through human and LLM assessments at scale, confirming they embodied the intended qualities. In a study with 29 practitioners, we found that, compared to regular stories, sticky stories significantly increased the engagement time on harm identification, broadened the range of harms recognized, and fostered deeper reflection.

Recent years have witnessed increasing calls for computing researchers to grapple with the societal impacts of their work. Tools such as impact assessments have gained prominence as a method to uncover potential impacts, and a number of publication venues now encourage authors to include an impact statement in their submissions. Despite this recent push, little is known about the way researchers go about assessing, articulating, and addressing the potential negative societal impact of their work --- especially in industry settings, where research outcomes are often quickly integrated into products and services. In addition, while there are nascent efforts to support researchers in this task, there remains a dearth of empirically-informed tools and processes. Through interviews with 25 industry computing researchers across different companies and research areas, we identify four key factors that influence how they grapple with (or choose not to grapple with) the societal impact of their research: the relationship between industry researchers and product teams; organizational dynamics and cultures that prioritize innovation and speed; misconceptions about societal impact; and a lack of sufficient infrastructure to support researchers. To develop an effective impact assessment template tailored to industry computing researchers' needs, we conduct an iterative co-design process with these 25 industry researchers, along with an additional 16 researchers and practitioners with prior experience and expertise in reviewing and developing impact assessments or responsible computing practices more broadly. Through the co-design process, we develop 10 design considerations to facilitate the effective design, implementation, and adaptation of an impact assessment template for use in industry research settings and beyond, as well as our own "Societal Impact Assessment" template with concrete scaffolds. We explore the effectiveness of this template through a user study with 15 industry research interns, revealing both its strengths and limitations. Finally, we discuss the implications for future researchers, organizations, and policymakers seeking to foster more responsible research practices.

There has been growing interest from both practitioners and researchers in engaging end users in AI auditing, to draw upon users' unique knowledge and lived experiences. However, we know little about how to effectively scaffold end users in auditing in ways that can generate actionable insights for AI practitioners. Through formative studies with both users and AI practitioners, we first identified a set of design goals to support user-engaged AI auditing. We then developed WeAudit, a workflow and system that supports end users in auditing AI both individually and collectively. We evaluated WeAudit through a three-week user study with user auditors and interviews with industry Generative AI practitioners. Our findings offer insights into how WeAudit supports users in noticing and reflecting upon potential AI harms and in articulating their findings in ways that industry practitioners can act upon. Based on our observations and feedback from both users and practitioners, we identify several opportunities to better support user engagement in AI auditing processes. We discuss implications for future research to support effective and responsible user engagement in AI auditing.

In response to rising concerns surrounding the safety, security, and trustworthiness of Generative AI (GenAI) models, practitioners and regulators alike have pointed to AI red-teaming as a key component of their strategies for identifying and mitigating these risks. However, despite AI red-teaming’s central role in policy discussions and corporate messaging, significant questions remain about what precisely it means, what role it can play in regulation, and how it relates to conventional red-teaming practices as originally conceived in the field of cybersecurity. In this work, we identify recent cases of red-teaming activities in the AI industry and conduct an extensive survey of relevant research literature to characterize the scope, structure, and criteria for AI red-teaming practices. Our analysis reveals that prior methods and practices of AI red-teaming diverge along several axes, including the purpose of the activity (which is often vague), the artifact under evaluation, the setting in which the activity is conducted (e.g., actors, resources, and methods), and the resulting decisions it informs (e.g., reporting, disclosure, and mitigation). In light of our findings, we argue that while red-teaming may be a valuable big-tent idea for characterizing GenAI harm mitigations, and that industry may effectively apply red-teaming and other strategies behind closed doors to safeguard AI, gestures towards red-teaming (based on public definitions) as a panacea for every possible risk verge on security theater. To move toward a more robust toolbox of evaluations for generative AI, we synthesize our recommendations into a question bank meant to guide and scaffold future AI red-teaming practices.

HCI scholars are increasingly engaging in research about “marginalized groups,” such as LGBTQ+ people. While normative habitual readings of marginalized people in HCI often highlight real problems, this work has been criticized for flattening heterogeneous experiences and overemphasizing harms. Some have advocated for expanding how we approach research on marginalized people (e.g., assets-based design, the everyday, and joy). Sensitized by unmaking literature, we explore this tension between conditions, experiences, and representations of marginality in HCI scholarship. To do so, we perform a diffractive analysis of posts in a gay online community by bringing two readings of the same data together: a normative habitual reading of marginalization and an expanded reading. By examining the relationship between empirical material and its representations by HCI researchers, we explore how to carefully unmake HCI research, thus maintaining and repairing our research community. We discuss the political and designerly implications of different readings of marginalized people and offer considerations for attending to the processes and afterlives of HCI research.

Recent years have seen growing interest among both researchers and practitioners in user-engaged approaches to algorithm auditing, which directly engage users in detecting problematic behaviors in algorithmic systems. However, we know little about industry practitioners’ current practices and challenges around user-engaged auditing, nor what opportunities exist for them to better leverage such approaches in practice. To investigate, we conducted a series of interviews and iterative co-design activities with practitioners who employ user-engaged auditing approaches in their work. Our findings reveal several challenges practitioners face in appropriately recruiting and incentivizing user auditors, scaffolding user audits, and deriving actionable insights from user-engaged audit reports. Furthermore, practitioners shared organizational obstacles to user-engaged auditing, surfacing a complex relationship between practitioners and user auditors. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI research to help realize the potential (and mitigate risks) of user-engaged auditing in industry practice.