Francisco Castro

Tsvetomila Mihaylova, Evanfiya Logacheva, Arto Hellas et al.

When programming students encounter errors in their code, compiler messages or static analysis output often provide limited guidance, particularly for novice programmers. Personalized feedback from instructors can be effective but does not scale well. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable automated feedback generation at scale. This study examines whether LLM-generated feedback with different levels of guidance is associated with differences in students' problem-solving behavior. We analyze effects on time to solution and number of attempts, and examine whether these effects differ by programming experience. We design three feedback types and compare them to a baseline in which students receive only compiler error messages. Results from an online programming course show that LLM-generated feedback is associated with faster time to solution compared to the no-feedback baseline, with less guided feedback showing slightly stronger effects. Overall, the findings suggest that feedback structure plays an important role in how students progress toward correct solutions and motivate further work on adaptive feedback designs and longer-term learning outcomes.

Francisco Castro, Jian Gao, Sébastien Martin

When working with generative artificial intelligence (AI), users may see productivity gains, but the AI-generated content may not match their preferences exactly. To study this effect, we introduce a Bayesian framework in which heterogeneous users choose how much information to share with the AI, facing a trade-off between output fidelity and communication cost. We show that the interplay between these individual-level decisions and AI training may lead to societal challenges. Outputs may become more homogenized, especially when the AI is trained on AI-generated content, potentially triggering a homogenization death spiral. And any AI bias may propagate to become societal bias. A solution to the homogenization and bias issues is to reduce human-AI interaction frictions and enable users to flexibly share information, leading to personalized outputs without sacrificing productivity.

Nick Bryan-Kinns, Shuoyang Jasper Zheng, Francisco Castro et al.

Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with how to make AI models more understandable to people. To date these explanations have predominantly been technocentric - mechanistic or productivity oriented. This paper introduces the Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) manifesto to provoke new ways of thinking about explainability and AI beyond technocentric discourses. Manifestos offer a means to communicate ideas, amplify unheard voices, and foster reflection on practice. To supports the co-creation and revision of the XAIxArts manifesto we combine a World Café style discussion format with a living manifesto to question four core themes: 1) Empowerment, Inclusion, and Fairness; 2) Valuing Artistic Practice; 3) Hacking and Glitches; and 4) Openness. Through our interactive living manifesto experience we invite participants to actively engage in shaping this XIAxArts vision within the CHI community and beyond.