Simon Enni

Simon Aagaard Enni, Malthe Stavning Erslev, Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup et al.

The emergence of LLM-driven information services is reshaping the conditions under which public knowledge institutions operate, threatening to absorb the editorial function these institutions exist to exercise. While LLMs offer powerful new affordances for knowledge dissemination, editorial authority is challenged by pretrained LLMs that arrive already aligned with the values and dissemination strategies of their commercial developers. This paper investigates editor participation in re-aligning LLM interfaces to editorial standards through design workshops, in a case study where we design and implement an LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface with a Nordic public knowledge institution. We introduce editorial alignment as a design practice within Participatory AI, framing AI alignment as a design process and positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact that translates editorial practice and values into alignment objectives for technical implementation. Last, we discuss how editorial alignment can create space for ongoing participation and give editors agency in LLM-mediated knowledge dissemination.

Simon Enni, Ira Assent

The influence of machine learning (ML) is quickly spreading, and a number of recent technological innovations have applied ML as a central technology. However, ML development still requires a substantial amount of human expertise to be successful. The deliberation and expert judgment applied during ML development cannot be revisited or scrutinized if not properly documented, and this hinders the further adoption of ML technologies--especially in safety critical situations. In this paper, we present a method consisting of eight design questions, that outline the deliberation and normative choices going into creating a ML model. Our method affords several benefits, such as supporting critical assessment through methodological transparency, aiding in model debugging, and anchoring model explanations by committing to a pre hoc expectation of the model's behavior. We believe that our method can help ML practitioners structure and justify their choices and assumptions when developing ML models, and that it can help bridge a gap between those inside and outside the ML field in understanding how and why ML models are designed and developed the way they are.