Recent studies have discussed how users are increasingly using conversational AI systems, powered by LLMs, for information seeking, decision support, and even emotional support. However, these macro-level observations offer limited insight into how the purpose of these interactions shifts over time, how users frame their interactions with the system, and how steering dynamics unfold in these human-AI interactions. To examine these evolving dynamics, we gathered and analyzed a unique dataset InVivoGPT: consisting of 825K ChatGPT interactions, donated by 300 users through their GDPR data rights. Our analyses reveal three key findings. First, participants increasingly turn to ChatGPT for a broader range of purposes, including substantial growth in sensitive domains such as health and mental health. Second, interactions become more socially framed: the system anthropomorphizes itself at rising rates, participants more frequently treat it as a companion, and personal data disclosure becomes both more common and more diverse. Third, conversational steering becomes more prominent, especially after the release of GPT-4o, with conversations where the participants followed a model-initiated suggestion quadrupling over the period of our dataset. Overall, our results show that conversational AI systems are shifting from functional tools to social partners, raising important questions about their design and governance.

Online platforms increasingly offer ''paid'' ad-free subscriptions as an alternative to the traditional ''free'' ad-based model. The transition to ad-free models ostensibly removes advertising as a key justification for data processing under the GDPR. So, normatively, platforms should collect less user data. However, platforms may justify continued data collection as a means to provide an improved, personalized experience. This tension between privacy principles and platform incentives raises a critical underexplored question: do data collection practices vary between ad-free and ad-based subscription models?

Opaque algorithms disseminate and mediate the content that users consume on online social media platforms. This algorithmic mediation serves users with contents of their liking, on the other hand, it may cause several inadvertent risks to society at scale. While some of these risks, e.g., filter bubbles or dissemination of hateful content, are well studied in the community, behavioral addiction, designated by the Digital Services Act (DSA) as a potential systemic risk, has been understudied. In this work, we aim to study if one can effectively diagnose behavioral addiction using digital data traces from social media platforms. Focusing on the TikTok short-format video platform as a case study, we employ a novel mixed methodology of combining survey responses with data donations of behavioral traces. We survey 1590 TikTok users and stratify them into three addiction groups (i.e., less/moderately/highly likely addicted). Then, we obtain data donations from 107 surveyed participants. By analyzing users' data we find that, among others, highly likely addicted users spend more time watching TikTok videos and keep coming back to TikTok throughout the day, indicating a compulsion to use the platform. Finally, by using basic user engagement features, we train classifier models to identify highly likely addicted users with F1 >= 0.55. The performance of the classifier models suggests predicting addictive users solely based on their usage is rather difficult.

In traditional (desktop) e-commerce search, a customer issues a specific query and the system returns a ranked list of products in order of relevance to the query. An increasingly popular alternative in e-commerce search is to issue a voice-query to a smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo) powered by a voice assistant (VA, e.g., Alexa). In this situation, the VA usually spells out the details of only one product, an explanation citing the reason for its selection, and a default action of adding the product to the customer’s cart. This reduced autonomy of the customer in the choice of a product during voice-search makes it necessary for a VA to be far more responsible and trustworthy in its explanation and default action.

With the surge in user-generated textual information, there has been a recent increase in the use of summarization algorithms for providing an overview of the extensive content. Traditional metrics for evaluation of these algorithms (e.g. ROUGE scores) rely on matching algorithmic summaries to human-generated ones. However, it has been shown that when the textual contents are heterogeneous, e.g., when they come from different socially salient groups, most existing summarization algorithms represent the social groups very differently compared to their distribution in the original data. To mitigate such adverse impacts, some fairness-preserving summarization algorithms have also been proposed. All of these studies have considered normative notions of fairness from the perspective of writers of the contents, neglecting the readers' perceptions of the underlying fairness notions. To bridge this gap, in this work, we study the interplay between the fairness notions and how readers perceive them in textual summaries. Through our experiments, we show that reader's perception of fairness is often context-sensitive. Moreover, standard ROUGE evaluation metrics are unable to quantify the perceived (un)fairness of the summaries. To this end, we propose a human-in-the-loop metric and an automated graph-based methodology to quantify the perceived bias in textual summaries. We demonstrate their utility by quantifying the (un)fairness of several summaries of heterogeneous socio-political microblog datasets.