Most generative AI tools prioritize individual productivity and personalization, with limited support for collaboration. Designed for traditional workplaces, these tools do not fit freelancers’ short-term teams or lack of shared institutional support, which can worsen their isolation and overlook freelancing platform dynamics. This mismatch means that, instead of empowering freelancers, current generative AI tools could reinforce existing precarity and make freelancer collaboration harder. To investigate how to design generative AI tools to support freelancer collaboration, we conducted co-design sessions with 27 freelancers. A key concern that emerged was the risk of AI systems compromising their creative agency and work identities when collaborating, especially when AI tools could reproduce content without attribution, threatening the authenticity and distinctiveness of their collaborative work. Freelancers proposed "auxiliary AI" systems, human-guided tools that support their creative agencies and identities, allowing for flexible freelancer-led collaborations that promote "productive friction". Drawing on Marcuse’s concept of technological rationality, we argue that freelancers are resisting one-dimensional, efficiency-driven AI, and instead envisioning technologies that preserve their collective creative agencies. We conclude with design recommendations for collaborative generative AI tools for freelancers.

The rapid adoption of generative AI in software development has impacted the industry, yet its effects on developers with visual impairments remain largely unexplored. To address this gap, we used an Activity Theory framework to examine how developers with visual impairments interact with AI coding assistants. For this purpose, we conducted a study where developers who are visually impaired completed a series of programming tasks using a generative AI coding assistant. We uncovered that, while participants found the AI assistant beneficial and reported significant advantages, they also highlighted accessibility challenges. Specifically, the AI coding assistant often exacerbated existing accessibility barriers and introduced new challenges. For example, it overwhelmed users with an excessive number of suggestions, leading developers who are visually impaired to express a desire for ``AI timeouts.'' Additionally, the generative AI coding assistant made it more difficult for developers to switch contexts between the AI-generated content and their own code. Despite these challenges, participants were optimistic about the potential of AI coding assistants to transform the coding experience for developers with visual impairments. Our findings emphasize the need to apply activity-centered design principles to generative AI assistants, ensuring they better align with user behaviors and address specific accessibility needs. This approach can enable the assistants to provide more intuitive, inclusive, and effective experiences, while also contributing to the broader goal of enhancing accessibility in software development.