Nicholas Vincent

Joshua Tan, Nicholas Vincent, Katherine Elkins et al.

Open source projects have made incredible progress in producing widely usable machine learning models and systems, but open source alone will face challenges in fully democratizing access to AI. Unlike previous generations of open source software, open source and open weight AI models require substantial resources to activate and maintain -- e.g., data and compute for pre-training, post-training, and deployment -- which only a few actors can currently provide. This position paper argues that open source AI must be complemented by public AI: infrastructure and institutions that ensure models are accessible, sustainable, and governed in the public interest. To achieve the full promise of AI models as prosocial public goods, we need to build public infrastructure to power and deliver open source software and models.

Haidan Liu, Poorvi Bhatia, Nicholas Vincent et al.

Developing AI literacy is increasingly urgent as generative AI reshapes creative practice. Yet most AI literacy frameworks are top-down and expert-driven, overlooking how literacy emerges organically in creative communities. To address this gap, we performed a large-scale analysis of 122k Reddit conversations from 80 creative-oriented subreddits over a three-year period. Our analysis identified four consistent themes in AI literacy-related discussions, and we further traced how discourse shifted alongside major AI events. Surprisingly, creators primarily frame AI literacy around how to use tools effectively, foregrounding practice and task skills, while discussions of AI capabilities and ethics surge only around high-profile events. Our findings suggest that AI literacy is dynamic, practice-driven, and event-responsive rather than static or purely conceptual. This study provides insights for researchers, designers, and policymakers to develop learning resources, community support, and policies that better promote AI literacy in creative communities.

Mahasweta Chakraborti, Bert Joseph Prestoza, Nicholas Vincent et al.

The rapid scaling of AI has spurred a growing emphasis on ethical considerations in both development and practice. This has led to the formulation of increasingly sophisticated model auditing and reporting requirements, as well as governance frameworks to mitigate potential risks to individuals and society. At this critical juncture, we review the practical challenges of promoting responsible AI and transparency in informal sectors like OSS that support vital infrastructure and see widespread use. We focus on how model performance evaluation may inform or inhibit probing of model limitations, biases, and other risks. Our controlled analysis of 7903 Hugging Face projects found that risk documentation is strongly associated with evaluation practices. Yet, submissions (N=789) from the platform's most popular competitive leaderboard showed less accountability among high performers. Our findings can inform AI providers and legal scholars in designing interventions and policies that preserve open-source innovation while incentivizing ethical uptake.

Vitor H. A. Welzel, Nicholas Vincent

As generative AI (GenAI) systems become increasingly proficient at simulating human-like and well-reasoned text, users may attribute authority to AI outputs, shaping how they engage with writing and reasoning tasks. While prior work has raised concerns about AI overreliance, empirical approaches for observing this phenomenon during open-ended writing remain limited. In this paper, we examine how GenAI assistance influences users' interactions with AI suggestions during writing. We report results from a mixed-methods study in which 47 participants completed analysis and synthesis writing tasks with or without AI assistance. We quantify the textual overlap between AI suggestions and participants' writing and analyze participants' reflections. Our results show that AI assistance is associated with patterns of suggestion reuse. Building on these findings, we design and evaluate an interactive writing interface that may support reflection on the usage of the AI suggestions during writing. Evidence from a small follow-up think-aloud study (n = 4) suggests that the interface can increase users' awareness of how AI outputs are incorporated into their writing and may support more conscious engagement with AI assistance. Together, our findings contribute empirical methods for studying AI adoption in writing contexts and demonstrate how interface design can shape user-AI interaction.

Patrick Zhao, David Huu Pham, Nicholas Vincent

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recently, research has aim to test whether they are capable of generating different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or performance in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different -- drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, \textit{explanation} requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of `plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

Haidan Liu, Isabelle Kwan, Taiga Okuma et al.

As generative AI tools increasingly influence creative practice, they raise longstanding HCI questions about how creatives learn complex software and how they can be better supported. We conducted an interview study with artists and hobbyists (n=8) and a follow-up survey (n=159) to understand how this population approaches and seeks guidance for GenAI image tools. We found that creatives commonly use either self-experimentation or tutorials to explore GenAI tools, yet many struggle with confusing AI terminology. To gain further insight into creatives' learning experiences, we developed a research probe to elicit creatives' perceptions of structured guidance. Our user study with 17 creatives revealed that, even when creatives described the guidance as helpful for understanding AI, many still preferred self-experimentation, feeling that guidance could limit their creativity. Our findings highlight a central tension in supporting AI literacy for creatives: balancing guidance and promoting literacy while preserving creative freedom.

Aditya Karan, Nicholas Vincent, Karrie Karahalios et al.

Given that data-dependent algorithmic systems have become impactful in more domains of life, the need for individuals to promote their own interests and hold algorithms accountable has grown. To have meaningful influence, individuals must band together to engage in collective action. Groups that engage in such algorithmic collective action are likely to vary in size, membership characteristics, and crucially, objectives. In this work, we introduce a first of a kind framework for studying collective action with two or more collectives that strategically behave to manipulate data-driven systems. With more than one collective acting on a system, unexpected interactions may occur. We use this framework to conduct experiments with language model-based classifiers and recommender systems where two collectives each attempt to achieve their own individual objectives. We examine how differing objectives, strategies, sizes, and homogeneity can impact a collective's efficacy. We find that the unintentional interactions between collectives can be quite significant; a collective acting in isolation may be able to achieve their objective (e.g., improve classification outcomes for themselves or promote a particular item), but when a second collective acts simultaneously, the efficacy of the first group drops by as much as $75\%$. We find that, in the recommender system context, neither fully heterogeneous nor fully homogeneous collectives stand out as most efficacious and that heterogeneity's impact is secondary compared to collective size. Our results signal the need for more transparency in both the underlying algorithmic models and the different behaviors individuals or collectives may take on these systems. This approach also allows collectives to hold algorithmic system developers accountable and provides a framework for people to actively use their own data to promote their own interests.

Weina Jin, Nicholas Vincent, Ghassan Hamarneh

"why" we develop AI. Lacking critical reflections on the general visions and purposes of AI may make the community vulnerable to manipulation. In this position paper, we explore the "why" question of AI. We denote answers to the "why" question the imaginations of AI, which depict our general visions, frames, and mindsets for the prospects of AI. We identify that the prevailing vision in the AI community is largely a monoculture that emphasizes objectives such as replacing humans and improving productivity. Our critical examination of this mainstream imagination highlights its underpinning and potentially unjust assumptions. We then call to diversify our collective imaginations of AI, embedding ethical assumptions from the outset in the imaginations of AI. To facilitate the community's pursuit of diverse imaginations, we demonstrate one process for constructing a new imagination of "AI for just work," and showcase its application in the medical image synthesis task to make it more ethical. We hope this work will help the AI community to open critical dialogues with civil society on the visions and purposes of AI, and inspire more technical works and advocacy in pursuit of diverse and ethical imaginations to restore the value of AI for the public good.

Zining Wang, Yuxuan Zhang, Dongwook Yoon et al.

With more than 11 times as many pageviews as the next largest edition, English Wikipedia dominates global knowledge access relative to other language editions. Readers are prone to assuming English Wikipedia as a superset of all language editions, leading many to prefer it even when their primary language is not English. Other language editions, however, comprise complementary facts rooted in their respective cultures and media environments, which are marginalized in English Wikipedia. While Wikipedia's user interface enables switching between language editions through its Interlanguage Link (ILL) system, it does not reveal to readers that other language editions contain valuable, complementary information. We present WikiGap, a system that surfaces complementary facts sourced from other Wikipedias within the English Wikipedia interface. Specifically, by combining a recent multilingual information-gap discovery method with a user-centered design, WikiGap enables access to complementary information from French, Russian, and Chinese Wikipedia. In a mixed-methods study (n=21), WikiGap significantly improved fact-finding accuracy, reduced task time, and received a 32-point higher usability score relative to Wikipedia's current ILL-based navigation system. Participants reported increased awareness of the availability of complementary information in non-English editions and reconsidered the completeness of English Wikipedia. WikiGap thus paves the way for improved epistemic equity across language editions.

Ayana Hussain, Patrick Zhao, Nicholas Vincent

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a double-edged sword capable of generating harmful misinformation -- inadvertently, or when prompted by "jailbreak" attacks that attempt to produce malicious outputs. LLMs could, with additional research, be used to detect and prevent the spread of misinformation. In this paper, we investigate the efficacy and characteristics of LLM-produced jailbreak attacks that cause other models to produce harmful medical misinformation. We also study how misinformation generated by jailbroken LLMs compares to typical misinformation found on social media, and how effectively it can be detected using standard machine learning approaches. Specifically, we closely examine 109 distinct attacks against three target LLMs and compare the attack prompts to in-the-wild health-related LLM queries. We also examine the resulting jailbreak responses, comparing the generated misinformation to health-related misinformation on Reddit. Our findings add more evidence that LLMs can be effectively used to detect misinformation from both other LLMs and from people, and support a body of work suggesting that with careful design, LLMs can contribute to a healthier overall information ecosystem.

Jack Bandy, Nicholas Vincent

Recent literature has underscored the importance of dataset documentation work for machine learning, and part of this work involves addressing "documentation debt" for datasets that have been used widely but documented sparsely. This paper aims to help address documentation debt for BookCorpus, a popular text dataset for training large language models. Notably, researchers have used BookCorpus to train OpenAI's GPT-N models and Google's BERT models, even though little to no documentation exists about the dataset's motivation, composition, collection process, etc. We offer a preliminary datasheet that provides key context and information about BookCorpus, highlighting several notable deficiencies. In particular, we find evidence that (1) BookCorpus likely violates copyright restrictions for many books, (2) BookCorpus contains thousands of duplicated books, and (3) BookCorpus exhibits significant skews in genre representation. We also find hints of other potential deficiencies that call for future research, including problematic content, potential skews in religious representation, and lopsided author contributions. While more work remains, this initial effort to provide a datasheet for BookCorpus adds to growing literature that urges more careful and systematic documentation for machine learning datasets.

Nicholas Vincent, Brent Hecht

A growing body of work has highlighted the important role that Wikipedia's volunteer-created content plays in helping search engines achieve their core goal of addressing the information needs of millions of people. In this paper, we report the results of an investigation into the incidence of Wikipedia links in search engine results pages (SERPs). Our results extend prior work by considering three U.S. search engines, simulating both mobile and desktop devices, and using a spatial analysis approach designed to study modern SERPs that are no longer just "ten blue links". We find that Wikipedia links are extremely common in important search contexts, appearing in 67-84% of all SERPs for common and trending queries, but less often for medical queries. Furthermore, we observe that Wikipedia links often appear in "Knowledge Panel" SERP elements and are in positions visible to users without scrolling, although Wikipedia appears less in prominent positions on mobile devices. Our findings reinforce the complementary notions that (1) Wikipedia content and research has major impact outside of the Wikipedia domain and (2) powerful technologies like search engines are highly reliant on free content created by volunteers.