Inyoung Cheong

Inyoung Cheong, Aylin Caliskan, Tadayoshi Kohno

Our interdisciplinary study investigates how effectively U.S. laws confront the challenges posed by Generative AI to human values. Through an analysis of diverse hypothetical scenarios crafted during an expert workshop, we have identified notable gaps and uncertainties within the existing legal framework regarding the protection of fundamental values, such as privacy, autonomy, dignity, diversity, equity, and physical/mental well-being. Constitutional and civil rights, it appears, may not provide sufficient protection against AI-generated discriminatory outputs. Furthermore, even if we exclude the liability shield provided by Section 230, proving causation for defamation and product liability claims is a challenging endeavor due to the intricate and opaque nature of AI systems. To address the unique and unforeseeable threats posed by Generative AI, we advocate for legal frameworks that evolve to recognize new threats and provide proactive, auditable guidelines to industry stakeholders. Addressing these issues requires deep interdisciplinary collaborations to identify harms, values, and mitigation strategies.

K. J. Kevin Feng, Quan Ze Chen, Inyoung Cheong et al. · uw

Case studies commonly form the pedagogical backbone in law, ethics, and many other domains that face complex and ambiguous societal questions informed by human values. Similar complexities and ambiguities arise when we consider how AI should be aligned in practice: when faced with vast quantities of diverse (and sometimes conflicting) values from different individuals and communities, with whose values is AI to align, and how should AI do so? We propose a complementary approach to constitutional AI alignment, grounded in ideas from case-based reasoning (CBR), that focuses on the construction of policies through judgments on a set of cases. We present a process to assemble such a case repository by: 1) gathering a set of ``seed'' cases -- questions one may ask an AI system -- in a particular domain, 2) eliciting domain-specific key dimensions for cases through workshops with domain experts, 3) using LLMs to generate variations of cases not seen in the wild, and 4) engaging with the public to judge and improve cases. We then discuss how such a case repository could assist in AI alignment, both through directly acting as precedents to ground acceptable behaviors, and as a medium for individuals and communities to engage in moral reasoning around AI.

Dominik Stammbach, Kylie Zhang, Patty Liu et al.

AI tools are suggested as solutions to assist public agencies with heavy workloads. In public defense -- where a constitutional right to counsel meets the complexities of law, overwhelming caseloads, and constrained resources -- practitioners face especially taxing conditions. Yet, there is little evidence of how AI could meaningfully support defenders' day-to-day work. In partnership with the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, we develop the NJ BriefBank, a retrieval tool which surfaces relevant appellate briefs to streamline legal research and writing. We show that existing retrieval benchmarks fail to transfer to real public defense research, however adding domain knowledge improves retrieval quality. This includes query expansion with legal reasoning, domain-specific data and curated synthetic examples. To facilitate further research, we release a taxonomy of realistic defender search queries and a manually annotated evaluation dataset for public defense retrieval. This benchmark is highly correlated with a proprietary retrieval dataset annotated by experienced public defenders. Our work improves on the status quo of realistic legal retrieval benchmarking and illustrates one approach to applying AI in a real-world public interest setting.

Inyoung Cheong, Patty Liu, Dominik Stammbach et al.

Public defenders are asked to do more with less: representing clients deserving of adequate counsel while facing overwhelming caseloads and scarce resources. Although artificial intelligence (AI) is often promoted as a means of relieving administrative and cognitive burdens, legal AI research rarely engages with the everyday realities of public defense work. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with fourteen public defense professionals across the United States, we identify work-intensive tasks most amenable to AI assistance and the ethical constraints involved in legal representation. We develop a comprehensive task-level map of public defense work, dividing it into five domains to clarify where AI can and cannot contribute: evidence investigation, legal research & writing, client communication, courtroom representation, and defense strategy. Interviewees consistently identified evidence investigation, such as reviewing large volumes of digital records, as the area with the greatest potential for AI support. AI was viewed as having more limited roles in legal research and client communication, and as least compatible with courtroom representation and defense strategy. We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality. Our interviewees emphasize safeguards for responsible use, including mandatory human verification, limits on overreliance, and the preservation of relational aspects of lawyering. Building on these findings, we outline a research agenda that promotes equitable access to justice by prioritizing open science, building domain-specific datasets and evaluation, and incorporating frontline practitioners' perspectives into system development.

Inyoung Cheong, King Xia, K. J. Kevin Feng et al. · uw

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of providing users with advice in a wide range of professional domains, including legal advice. However, relying on LLMs for legal queries raises concerns due to the significant expertise required and the potential real-world consequences of the advice. To explore \textit{when} and \textit{why} LLMs should or should not provide advice to users, we conducted workshops with 20 legal experts using methods inspired by case-based reasoning. The provided realistic queries ("cases") allowed experts to examine granular, situation-specific concerns and overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a concrete set of contextual considerations for LLM developers. By synthesizing the factors that impacted LLM response appropriateness, we present a 4-dimension framework: (1) User attributes and behaviors, (2) Nature of queries, (3) AI capabilities, and (4) Social impacts. We share experts' recommendations for LLM response strategies, which center around helping users identify `right questions to ask' and relevant information rather than providing definitive legal judgments. Our findings reveal novel legal considerations, such as unauthorized practice of law, confidentiality, and liability for inaccurate advice, that have been overlooked in the literature. The case-based deliberation method enabled us to elicit fine-grained, practice-informed insights that surpass those from de-contextualized surveys or speculative principles. These findings underscore the applicability of our method for translating domain-specific professional knowledge and practices into policies that can guide LLM behavior in a more responsible direction.

Zhehui Liao, Maria Antoniak, Inyoung Cheong et al.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led many researchers to consider their usage for scientific work. Some have found benefits using LLMs to augment or automate aspects of their research pipeline, while others have urged caution due to risks and ethical concerns. Yet little work has sought to quantify and characterize how researchers use LLMs and why. We present the first large-scale survey of 816 verified research article authors to understand how the research community leverages and perceives LLMs as research tools. We examine participants' self-reported LLM usage, finding that 81% of researchers have already incorporated LLMs into different aspects of their research workflow. We also find that traditionally disadvantaged groups in academia (non-White, junior, and non-native English speaking researchers) report higher LLM usage and perceived benefits, suggesting potential for improved research equity. However, women, non-binary, and senior researchers have greater ethical concerns, potentially hindering adoption.

Jimin Mun, Liwei Jiang, Jenny Liang et al. · allen-ai, cmu

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without a comprehensive assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic risk assessment and design of general purpose AI, we introduce PARTICIP-AI, a carefully designed framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards informing democratic AI development, we run a medium-scale study with inputs from 295 demographically diverse participants. Our analyses show that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. We also surface diverse set of envisioned harms such as distrust in AI and institutions, complementary to those defined by experts. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases significantly predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can further guide democratic AI development and governance.

K. J. Kevin Feng, Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Quan Ze et al.

As LLMs gain adoption in high-stakes domains like mental health, domain experts are increasingly consulted to provide input into policies governing their behavior. From an observation of 19 policymaking workshops with 9 experts over 15 weeks, we identified opportunities to better support rapid experimentation, feedback, and iteration for collaborative policy design processes. We present PolicyPad, an interactive system that facilitates the emerging practice of LLM policy prototyping by drawing from established UX prototyping practices, including heuristic evaluation and storyboarding. Using PolicyPad, policy designers can collaborate on drafting a policy in real time while independently testing policy-informed model behavior with usage scenarios. We evaluate PolicyPad through workshops with 8 groups of 22 domain experts in mental health and law, finding that PolicyPad enhanced collaborative dynamics during policy design, enabled tight feedback loops, and led to novel policy contributions. Overall, our work paves participatory paths for advancing AI alignment and safety.

Inyoung Cheong, Alicia Guo, Mina Lee et al.

As AI integrates in various types of human writing, calls for transparency around AI assistance are growing. However, if transparency operates on uneven ground and certain identity groups bear a heavier cost for being honest, then the burden of openness becomes asymmetrical. This study investigates how AI disclosure statement affects perceptions of writing quality, and whether these effects vary by the author's race and gender. Through a large-scale controlled experiment, both human raters (n = 1,970) and LLM raters (n = 2,520) evaluated a single human-written news article while disclosure statements and author demographics were systematically varied. This approach reflects how both human and algorithmic decisions now influence access to opportunities (e.g., hiring, promotion) and social recognition (e.g., content recommendation algorithms). We find that both human and LLM raters consistently penalize disclosed AI use. However, only LLM raters exhibit demographic interaction effects: they favor articles attributed to women or Black authors when no disclosure is present. But these advantages disappear when AI assistance is revealed. These findings illuminate the complex relationships between AI disclosure and author identity, highlighting disparities between machine and human evaluation patterns.

Luxi He, Xiangyu Qi, Michel Liao et al. · princeton

The latest Audio Language Models (Audio LMs) process speech directly instead of relying on a separate transcription step. This shift preserves detailed information, such as intonation or the presence of multiple speakers, that would otherwise be lost in transcription. However, it also introduces new safety risks, including the potential misuse of speaker identity cues and other sensitive vocal attributes, which could have legal implications. In this paper, we urge a closer examination of how these models are built and deployed. Our experiments show that end-to-end modeling, compared with cascaded pipelines, creates socio-technical safety risks such as identity inference, biased decision-making, and emotion detection. This raises concerns about whether Audio LMs store voiceprints and function in ways that create uncertainty under existing legal regimes. We then argue that the Principle of Least Privilege should be considered to guide the development and deployment of these models. Specifically, evaluations should assess (1) the privacy and safety risks associated with end-to-end modeling; and (2) the appropriate scope of information access. Finally, we highlight related gaps in current audio LM benchmarks and identify key open research questions, both technical and policy-related, that must be addressed to enable the responsible deployment of end-to-end Audio LMs.