Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Steven Rousso-Schindler
dblp:217/9547
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0008-9407-804XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 56% Web and mobile security · 28% Usable security · 8% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Human-AI interaction · 77% Design research and methods · 23% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Security and privacy of machine learning › generative model security
generative model misuse |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape · CHI 2026 |
Web and mobile security
harmful content detection |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape · CHI 2026 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › large language model safety
harmful content generation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape · CHI 2026 |
Human-AI interaction › user perception of AI
fairness perceptions |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness · CHI 2018 |
Design research and methods › design workshops
participatory workshops |
0.3 | 2 | 2024 | How Knowledge Workers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their Industries · CHI 2024 A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness · CHI 2018 |
Systems and software security
content moderation |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape · CHI 2026 |
Usable security
trust and safety |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety Landscape · CHI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
qualitative analysis · 1.1qualitative study · 1.0participatory workshop · 0.8workshop · 0.3interviews · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | How Generative AI Empowers Attackers and Defenders Across the Trust & Safety LandscapeabstractGenerative AI (GenAI) is a powerful technology poised to reshape Trust & Safety. While misuse by attackers is a growing concern, its defensive capacity remains underexplored. This paper examines these effects through a qualitative study with 43 Trust & Safety experts across five domains: child safety, election integrity, hate and harassment, scams, and violent extremism. Our findings characterize a landscape in which GenAI empowers both attackers and defenders. GenAI dramatically increases the scale and speed of attacks, lowering the barrier to entry for creating harmful content, including sophisticated propaganda and deepfakes. Conversely, defenders envision leveraging GenAI to detect and mitigate harmful content at scale, conduct investigations, deploy persuasive counternarratives, improve moderator wellbeing, and offer user support. This work provides a strategic framework for understanding GenAI’s impact on Trust & Safety and charts a path for its responsible use in creating safer online environments. Patrick Gage Kelley, Steven Rousso-Schindler, Renee Shelby, Kurt Thomas, Allison Woodruff |
CHI | 2 |
| 2024 | How Knowledge Workers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their IndustriesabstractGenerative AI is expected to have transformative effects in multiple knowledge industries. To better understand how knowledge workers expect generative AI may affect their industries in the future, we conducted participatory research workshops for seven different industries, with a total of 54 participants across three US cities. We describe participants’ expectations of generative AI’s impact, including a dominant narrative that cut across the groups’ discourse: participants largely envision generative AI as a tool to perform menial work, under human review. Participants do not generally anticipate the disruptive changes to knowledge industries currently projected in common media and academic narratives. Participants do however envision generative AI may amplify four social forces currently shaping their industries: deskilling, dehumanization, disconnection, and disinformation. We describe these forces, and then we provide additional detail regarding attitudes in specific knowledge industries. We conclude with a discussion of implications and research challenges for the HCI community. Allison Woodruff, Renee Shelby, Patrick Gage Kelley, Steven Rousso-Schindler, Jamila Smith-Loud, Lauren Wilcox |
CHI | 4 |
| 2018 | A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic FairnessabstractAlgorithmic systems increasingly shape information people are exposed to as well as influence decisions about employment, finances, and other opportunities. In some cases, algorithmic systems may be more or less favorable to certain groups or individuals, sparking substantial discussion of algorithmic fairness in public policy circles, academia, and the press. We broaden this discussion by exploring how members of potentially affected communities feel about algorithmic fairness. We conducted workshops and interviews with 44 participants from several populations traditionally marginalized by categories of race or class in the United States. While the concept of algorithmic fairness was largely unfamiliar, learning about algorithmic (un)fairness elicited negative feelings that connect to current national discussions about racial injustice and economic inequality. In addition to their concerns about potential harms to themselves and society, participants also indicated that algorithmic fairness (or lack thereof) could substantially affect their trust in a company or product. Allison Woodruff, Sarah E. Fox, Steven Rousso-Schindler, Jeffrey Warshaw |
CHI | 3 |