CYJun 12, 2025
"I Hadn't Thought About That": Creators of Human-like AI Weigh in on Ethics And NeurodivergenceNaba Rizvi, Taggert Smith, Tanvi Vidyala et al.
Human-like AI agents such as robots and chatbots are becoming increasingly popular, but they present a variety of ethical concerns. The first concern is in how we define humanness, and how our definition impacts communities historically dehumanized by scientific research. Autistic people in particular have been dehumanized by being compared to robots, making it even more important to ensure this marginalization is not reproduced by AI that may promote neuronormative social behaviors. Second, the ubiquitous use of these agents raises concerns surrounding model biases and accessibility. In our work, we investigate the experiences of the people who build and design these technologies to gain insights into their understanding and acceptance of neurodivergence, and the challenges in making their work more accessible to users with diverse needs. Even though neurodivergent individuals are often marginalized for their unique communication styles, nearly all participants overlooked the conclusions their end-users and other AI system makers may draw about communication norms from the implementation and interpretation of humanness applied in participants' work. This highlights a major gap in their broader ethical considerations, compounded by some participants' neuronormative assumptions about the behaviors and traits that distinguish "humans" from "bots" and the replication of these assumptions in their work. We examine the impact this may have on autism inclusion in society and provide recommendations for additional systemic changes towards more ethical research directions.
HCMar 8
From Autonomy to Sovereignty - A New Telos for Socially Assistive TechnologyJiWoong Jang, Patrick Carrington, Andrew Begel
Social accessibility research faces a persistent tension: assistive technologies (AT) predominantly pursue independence, yet disabled people's experiences reveal rich preferences for interdependence. Our analysis of 90 papers from 2011-2025 uncovered that this stems from a deeper issue - which crystallized through dialogue with three bodies of theories: (1) self-determination theory (SDT), (2) symbolic interactionism, and (3) posthumanist perspectives and crip technoscience. SDT illuminates individual needs; symbolic interactionism addresses construction of social meaning and stigma; Posthumanist and crip technoscience together challenges normalcy, governance, and the human-machine boundary. Through their tensions, we identify relational sovereignty as an alternative telos - or goal - to autonomy. While our corpus equates autonomy with independence, sovereignty centers the power to choose between independence and interdependence. To operationalize this shift - from "Can they do it?" to "Do they get to decide?" - we introduce the Relational Sovereignty Matrix and four design interventions: (1) a sovereignty-centered reframing of SDT, (2) generative questions for justice-oriented reflection, (3) the idea of building through sovereign technical primitives, and (4) explicit consideration of power in AT design.
HCMar 8
The Three Praxes Framework - A Thematic Review and Map of Social Accessibility ResearchJiWoong Jang, Patrick Carrington, Andrew Begel
Research in social accessibility aims to improve the lives of disabled people across diverse abilities and experiences by assisting with communication, relationships, and ecosystems of access. We seek to understand this intersectional body of work through analyzing social accessibility research from 2011 to 2025. Through constructivist grounded theory analysis of 90 papers (curated from 605), we develop the Three Praxes Framework: three sites of practice Artifact (constructive), Ecosystem (relational), and Epistemology (theoretical) - two cross-cutting stances toward change (Temporal Orientation and Stakeholder Focus) - and one reflexive cycle modeling how insights can flow between praxes. Our analysis reveals these praxes operate largely in isolation, risking that insights remain academic exercises while assistive technologies reinforce existing barriers. We call on the field to realize a cycle where disabled people's lived experiences shape material realities, material practice generates theoretical knowledge, and both transform ecosystems of access.