Online financial scams represent a long-standing and serious threat for which people seek help. We present a study to understand people’s in situ motivations for engaging with scams and the help needs they express before, during, and after encountering a scam. We identify the main emotions scammers exploited (e.g., fear, hope) and characterize how they did so. We examine factors—such as financial insecurity and legal precarity—which elevate people’s risk of engaging with specific scams and experiencing harm. We indicate when people sought help and describe their help-seeking needs and emotions at different stages of the scam. We discuss how these needs could be met through the design of contextually-specific prevention, diagnostic, mitigation, and recovery interventions.

Generative AI’s humanlike qualities are driving its rapid adoption in professional domains. However, this anthropomorphic appeal raises concerns from HCI and responsible AI scholars about potential hazards and harms, such as overtrust in system outputs. To investigate how technology workers navigate these humanlike qualities and anticipate emergent harms, we conducted focus groups with 30 professionals across six job functions (ML engineering, product policy, UX research and design, product management, technology writing, and communications). Our findings reveal an unsettled knowledge environment surrounding humanlike generative AI, where workers’ varying perspectives illuminate a range of potential risks for individuals, knowledge work fields, and society. We argue that workers require comprehensive support, including clearer conceptions of “humanlikeness” to effectively mitigate these risks. To aid in mitigation strategies, we provide a conceptual map articulating the identified hazards and their connection to conflated notions of “humanlikeness.”

A growing body of qualitative research has identified contextual risk factors that elevate people’s chances of experiencing digital-safety attacks. However, the lack of quantitative data on the population-level distribution of these risk factors prevents policymakers and tech companies from developing targeted, evidence-based interventions to improve digital safety. To address this gap, we surveyed 5,001 adults in the United States to analyze: (1) the frequency of and relationship between digital-safety attacks (e.g., scams, harassment, account hacking), and (2) how these attacks align with 10 contextual risk factors. Nearly half of our respondents identify as resource constrained, which significantly correlates with higher likelihood of experiencing four common attacks. We also present qualitative insights to expand our understanding of the factors beyond the existing literature (e.g., “prominence” included high-visibility roles in local communities). This study provides the first large-scale quantitative analysis correlating digital-safety attacks with contextual risk factors and demographics.

Generative 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.

As generative artificial intelligence (genAI) applications gain popularity, there is a dearth of research examining how applications may transform social interactions. One possible application set to transform social interactions is the use of generative speech to power AI agents that can realistically represent people. Our work examines the potential implications of AI agents representing individuals in human conversations ("agent representation") as a way to begin filling this research gap. We take a multi-method approach, conducting formative interviews with developers, a co-design workshop with designers, a harm analysis among researchers, and interviews with the general public. Both technologists and potential users worry adopting agent representations might harm the quality, trust, and autonomy of human communication. Potential users are particularly concerned that agent representations could undermine the value of social interaction and threaten individuals’ ability to control their image. To avoid such potential consequences, future genAI-powered agents and speech applications should take into account user-defined red lines when considering applying these technologies in social settings.

Generative AI (GAI) is proliferating, and among its many applications are to support creative work (e.g., generating text, images, music) and to enhance accessibility (e.g., captions of images and audio). As GAI evolves, creatives must consider how (or how not) to incorporate these tools into their practices. In this paper, we present interviews at the intersection of these applications. We learned from 10 creatives with disabilities who intentionally use and do not use GAI in and around their creative work. Their mediums ranged from audio engineering to leatherwork, and they collectively experienced a variety of disabilities, from sensory to motor to invisible disabilities. We share cross-cutting themes of their access hacks, how creative practice and access work become entangled, and their perspectives on how GAI should and should not fit into their workflows. In turn, we offer qualities of accessible creativity with responsible AI that can inform future research.

Understanding how communities experience algorithms is necessary to mitigate potential harmful impacts. This paper presents folk theories of text-to-image (T2I) models to enrich understanding of how artist communities experience creative machine learning systems. This research draws on data collected from a workshop with 15 artists from 10 countries who incorporate T2I models in their creative practice. Through reflexive thematic analysis of workshop data, we highlight artist folk theories of T2I use, harm, and harm reduction. Folk theories of use envision T2I models as an artistic medium, a mundane tool, and locate true creativity as rising above model affordances. Theories of harm articulate T2I models as harmed by engineering efforts to eliminate glitches and product policy efforts to limit functionality. Theories of harm-reduction orient towards protecting T2I models for creative practice through transparency and distributed governance. We examine how these theories relate, and conclude by discussing how folk theorization informs responsible AI efforts.

Generative 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.

Creative ML tools are collaborative systems that afford artistic creativity through their myriad interactive relationships. We propose using "assemblage thinking" to support analyses of creative ML by approaching it as a system in which the elements of people, organizations, culture, practices, and technology constantly influence each other. We model these interactions as "coordinating elements" that give rise to the social and political characteristics of a particular creative ML context, and call attention to three dynamic elements of creative ML whose interactions provide unique context for the social impact a particular system has: people, creative processes, and products. As creative assemblages are highly contextual, we present these as analytical concepts that computing researchers can adapt to better understand the functioning of a particular system or phenomena and identify intervention points to foster desired change. This paper contributes to theorizing interactions with AI in the context of art, and how these interactions shape the production of algorithmic art.

Identifying potential social and ethical risks in emerging machine learning (ML) models and their applications remains challenging. In this work, we applied two well-established safety engineering frameworks (FMEA, STPA) to a case study involving text-to-image models at three stages of the ML product development pipeline: data processing, integration of a T2I model with other models, and use. Results of our analysis demonstrate the safety frameworks – both of which are not designed explicitly examine social and ethical risks – can uncover failure and hazards that pose social and ethical risks. We discovered a broad range of failures and hazards (i.e., functional, social, and ethical) by analyzing interactions (i.e., between different ML models in the product, between the ML product and user, and between development teams) and processes (i.e., preparation of training data or workflows for using an ML service/product). Our findings underscore the value and importance of examining beyond an ML model in examining social and ethical risks, especially when we have minimal information about an ML model.

Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different algorithmic technologies. However, computing research and practitioners lack a high level and synthesized overview of harms from algorithmic systems. Based on a scoping review of computing research (n=172), we present an applied taxonomy of sociotechnical harms to support a more systematic surfacing of potential harms in algorithmic systems. The final taxonomy builds on and refers to existing taxonomies, classifications, and terminologies. Five major themes related to sociotechnical harms — representational, allocative, quality-of-service, interpersonal harms, and social system/societal harms — and sub-themes are presented along with a description of these categories. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for future research.

Inappropriate design and deployment of machine learning (ML) systems lead to negative downstream social and ethical impacts – described here as social and ethical risks – for users, society, and the environment. Despite the growing need to regulate ML systems, current processes for assessing and mitigating risks are disjointed and inconsistent. We interviewed 30 industry practitioners on their current social and ethical risk management practices and collected their first reactions on adapting safety engineering frameworks into their practice – namely, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Our findings suggest STPA/FMEA can provide an appropriate structure for social and ethical risk assessment and mitigation processes. However, we also find nontrivial challenges in integrating such frameworks in the fast-paced culture of the ML industry. We call on the CHI community to strengthen existing frameworks and assess their efficacy, ensuring that ML systems are safer for all people.

We present a cross-cultural diary study with 64 transgender (trans) and non-binary adults in Mexico, the U.S., and India, to understand experiences keeping track of and managing aspects of personal health and well-being. Based on a reflexive thematic analysis of diary data, we highlight sociotechnical interactions that shape how trans and non-binary people track and manage aspects of their health and well-being. Specifically, we surface the ways in which trans and non-binary people infrastructure forms of care, by assembling together elements of informal social ecologies, formalized knowledge sources, and self-reflective media. We examine the forms of precarity that interact with care infrastructure and shape management of health and well-being, including management of gender identity transitions. We discuss the ways in which our findings extend knowledge at the intersection of technology and marginalized health needs, and conclude by arguing for the importance of a research agenda to move toward TGNB-inclusive design.