AI-based writing assistants are ubiquitous, yet little is known about how users’ mental models shape their use. We examine two types of mental models—functional or related to what the system does, and structural or related to how the system works—and how they affect control behavior—how users request, accept, or edit AI suggestions as they write—and writing outcomes. We primed participants (N = 48) with different system descriptions to induce these mental models before asking them to complete a cover letter writing task using a writing assistant that occasionally offered preconfigured ungrammatical suggestions to test whether the mental models affected participants’ critical oversight. We find that while participants in the structural mental model condition demonstrate a better understanding of the system, this can have a backfiring effect: while these participants judged the system as more usable, they also produced letters with more grammatical errors, highlighting a complex relationship between system understanding, trust, and control in contexts that require user oversight of error-prone AI outputs.

As text generation systems' outputs are increasingly anthropomorphic-perceived as humanlike-scholars have also increasingly raised concerns about how such outputs can lead to harmful outcomes, such as users over-relying or developing emotional dependence on these systems.How to intervene on such system outputs to mitigate anthropomorphic behaviors and their attendant harmful outcomes, however, remains understudied.With this work, we aim to provide empirical and theoretical grounding for developing such interventions.To do so, we compile an inventory of interventions grounded both in prior literature and a crowdsourcing study where participants edited system outputs to make them less human-like.Drawing on this inventory, we also develop a conceptual framework to help characterize the landscape of possible interventions, articulate distinctions between different types of interventions, and provide a theoretical basis for evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions.

Recent attention to anthropomorphism -- the attribution of human-like qualities to non-human objects or entities -- of language technologies like LLMs has sparked renewed discussions about potential negative impacts of anthropomorphism. To productively discuss the impacts of this anthropomorphism and in what contexts it is appropriate, we need a shared vocabulary for the vast variety of ways that language can be anthropomorphic. In this work, we draw on existing literature and analyze empirical cases of user interactions with language technologies to develop a taxonomy of textual expressions that can contribute to anthropomorphism. We highlight challenges and tensions involved in understanding linguistic anthropomorphism, such as how all language is fundamentally human and how efforts to characterize and shift perceptions of humanness in machines can also dehumanize certain humans. We discuss ways that our taxonomy supports more precise and effective discussions of and decisions about anthropomorphism of language technologies.

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor---such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about the capabilities of AI systems. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception---in addition to a more expansive understanding of 1) methodological rigor---should include aspects related to 2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); 3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); 4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); 5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and 6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also provide useful language and a framework for much needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

Given the rising proliferation and diversity of AI writing assistance tools, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), both writers and readers may have concerns about the impact of these tools on the authenticity of writing work. We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools and whether personalization of AI writing support could help achieve this goal. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, during which they co-wrote with both personalized and non-personalized AI writing-support tools. We supplemented writers' perspectives with opinions from 30 avid readers about the written work co-produced with AI collected through an online survey. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation, which focus more on the process and experience of constructing creators' authentic selves. While writers reacted positively to personalized AI writing tools, they believed the form of personalization needs to target writers' growth and go beyond the phase of text production. Overall, readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing. Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work and showed positive attitudes toward writers experimenting with new technology for creative writing.

Yu Lu Liu, Su Lin Blodgett, Jackie Cheung, Q. Vera Liao, Alexandra Olteanu, Ziang Xiao. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

Li Lucy, Su Lin Blodgett, Milad Shokouhi, Hanna Wallach, Alexandra Olteanu. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

Akshatha Arodi, Martin Pömsl, Kaheer Suleman, Adam Trischler, Alexandra Olteanu, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.

Eve Fleisig, Aubrie Amstutz, Chad Atalla, Su Lin Blodgett, Hal Daumé III, Alexandra Olteanu, Emily Sheng, Dan Vann, Hanna Wallach. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2023.

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.

Kaitlyn Zhou, Su Lin Blodgett, Adam Trischler, Hal Daumé III, Kaheer Suleman, Alexandra Olteanu. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2022.

Su Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim, Hanna Wallach. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

Ali Emami, Ian Porada, Alexandra Olteanu, Kaheer Suleman, Adam Trischler, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

In email interfaces, providing users with reply suggestions may simplify or accelerate correspondence. While the “success” of such systems is typically quantified using the number of suggestions selected by users, this ignores the impact of social context, which can change how suggestions are perceived. To address this, we developed a mixed-methods framework involving qualitative interviews and crowdsourced experiments to characterize problematic email reply suggestions. Our interviews revealed issues with over-positive, dissonant, cultural, and gender-assuming replies, as well as contextual politeness. In our experiments, crowdworkers assessed email scenarios that we generated and systematically controlled, showing that contextual factors like social ties and the presence of salutations impacts users’ perceptions of email correspondence. These assessments created a novel dataset of human-authored corrections for problematic email replies. Our study highlights the social complexity of providing suggestions for email correspondence, raising issues that may apply to all social messaging systems.

Problematic web search query completion suggestions-perceived as biased, offensive, or in some other way harmful-can reinforce existing stereotypes and misbeliefs, and even nudge users towards undesirable patterns of behavior. Locating such suggestions is difficult, not only due to the long-tailed nature of web search, but also due to differences in how people assess potential harms. Grounding our study in web search query logs, we explore when system-provided suggestions might be perceived as problematic through a series of crowd-experiments where we systematically manipulate: the search query fragments provided by users, possible user search intents, and the list of query completion suggestions. To examine why query suggestions might be perceived as problematic, we contrast them to an inventory of known types of problematic suggestions. We report our observations around differences in the prevalence of a) suggestions that are problematic on their own versus b) suggestions that are problematic for the query fragment provided by a user, for both common informational needs and in the presence of web search voids-topics searched by few to no users. Our experiments surface a rich array of scenarios where suggestions are considered problematic, including due to the context in which they were surfaced. Compounded by the elusive nature of many such scenarios, the prevalence of suggestions perceived as problematic only for certain user inputs, raises concerns about blind spots due to data annotation practices that may lead to some types of problematic suggestions being overlooked.

This workshop explores challenges in responsible information retrieval system development and deployment. The focus is on determining actionable research agendas on five key dimensions of responsible information retrieval: fairness, accountability, confidentiality, transparency, and safety. Rather than just a mini-conference, this workshop is an event during which participants are expected to work. The workshop brings together a diverse set of researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to the development of a technical research agenda for responsible information retrieval.

Online social data like user-generated content, expressed or implicit relations among people, and behavioral traces are at the core of many popular web applications and platforms, driving the research agenda of researchers in both academia and industry. The promises of social data are many, including the understanding of "what the world thinks»» about a social issue, brand, product, celebrity, or other entity, as well as enabling better decision-making in a variety of fields including public policy, healthcare, and economics. However, many academics and practitioners are increasingly warning against the naive usage of social data. They highlight that there are biases and inaccuracies occurring at the source of the data, but also introduced during data processing pipeline; there are methodological limitations and pitfalls, as well as ethical boundaries and unexpected outcomes that are often overlooked. Such an overlook can lead to wrong or inappropriate results that can be consequential.

Millions of people regularly report the details of their real-world experiences on social media. This provides an opportunity to observe the outcomes of common and critical situations. Identifying and quantifying these outcomes may provide better decision-support and goal-achievement for individuals, and help policy-makers and scientists better understand important societal phenomena. We address several open questions about using social media data for open-domain outcome identification: Are the words people are more likely to use after some experience relevant to this experience? How well do these words cover the breadth of outcomes likely to occur for an experience? What kinds of outcomes are discovered? Studying 3-months of Twitter data capturing people who experienced 39 distinct situations across a variety of domains, we find that these outcomes are generally found to be relevant (55-100% on average) and that causally related concepts are more likely to be discovered than conceptual or semantically related concepts.

The use of social media to communicate timely information during crisis situations has become a common practice in recent years. In particular, the one-to-many nature of Twitter has created an opportunity for stakeholders to disseminate crisis-relevant messages, and to access vast amounts of information they may not otherwise have. Our goal is to understand what affected populations, response agencies and other stakeholders can expect-and not expect-from these data in various types of disaster situations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that different types of crises elicit different reactions from Twitter users, but we have yet to see whether this is in fact the case. In this paper, we investigate several crises-including natural hazards and human-induced disasters-in a systematic manner and with a consistent methodology. This leads to insights about the prevalence of different information types and sources across a variety of crisis situations.

An overwhelming and growing amount of data is available online. The problem of untrustworthy online information is augmented by its high economic potential and its dynamic nature, e.g. transient domain names, dynamic content, etc. In this paper, we address the problem of assessing the credibility of web pages by a decentralized social recommender system. Specifically, we concurrently employ i) item-based collaborative filtering (CF) based on specific web page features, ii) user-based CF based on friend ratings and iii) the ranking of the page in search results. These factors are appropriately combined into a single assessment based on adaptive weights that depend on their effectiveness for different topics and different fractions of malicious ratings. Simulation experiments with real traces of web page credibility evaluations suggest that our hybrid approach outperforms both its constituent components and classical content-based classification approaches.