Sheer Karny

Sheer Karny, Anthony Baez, Pat Pataranutaporn

Millions of users now design personalized LLM-based chatbots that shape their daily interactions, yet they can only loosely anticipate how their design choices will manifest as behaviors in deployment. This opacity is consequential: seemingly innocuous prompts can trigger excessive sycophancy, toxicity, or inconsistency, degrading utility and raising safety concerns. To address this issue, we introduce an interface that enables neural transparency by exposing language model internals during chatbot design. Our approach extracts behavioral trait vectors (empathy, toxicity, sycophancy, etc.) by computing differences in neural activations between contrastive system prompts that elicit opposing behaviors. We predict chatbot behaviors by projecting the system prompt's final token activations onto these trait vectors, normalizing for cross-trait comparability, and visualizing results via an interactive sunburst diagram. To evaluate this approach, we conducted an online user study using Prolific to compare our neural transparency interface against a baseline chatbot interface without any form of transparency. Our analyses suggest that users systematically miscalibrated AI behavior: participants misjudged trait activations for eleven of fifteen analyzable traits, motivating the need for transparency tools in everyday human-AI interaction. While our interface did not change design iteration patterns, it significantly increased user trust and was enthusiastically received. Qualitative analysis indicated that users' had nuanced experiences with the visualization that may enrich future work designing neurally transparent interfaces. This work offers a path for how mechanistic interpretability can be operationalized for non-technical users, establishing a foundation for safer, more aligned human-AI interactions.

Lukas William Mayer, Sheer Karny, Jackie Ayoub et al.

Despite the growing interest in collaborative AI, designing systems that seamlessly integrate human input remains a major challenge. In this study, we developed a task to systematically examine human preferences for collaborative agents. We created and evaluated five collaborative AI agents with strategies that differ in the manner and degree they adapt to human actions. Participants interacted with a subset of these agents, evaluated their perceived traits, and selected their preferred agent. We used a Bayesian model to understand how agents' strategies influence the Human-AI team performance, AI's perceived traits, and the factors shaping human-preferences in pairwise agent comparisons. Our results show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents. Moreover, we show that such human-centric design can improve the likability of AI collaborators without reducing performance. We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how collaboration with AI can benefit from development efforts which include both subjective and objective metrics.