Ryland Shaw

Alice Qian Zhang, Ryland Shaw, Jacy Reese Anthis et al. · microsoft-research, utoronto

Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in "red teaming," a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing body of HCI and CSCW literature examines related practices-including data labeling, content moderation, and algorithmic auditing. However, few, if any have investigated red teaming itself. Future studies may explore topics ranging from fairness to mental health and other areas of potential harm. We aim to facilitate a community of researchers and practitioners who can begin to meet these challenges with creativity, innovation, and thoughtful reflection.

Alice Qian, Ryland Shaw, Laura Dabbish et al.

As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection processes, but they overlook an important aspect of disclosing well-being risks to workers. In the absence of standard workflows or clear guidance, the consistent application of content warnings, consent flows, or other forms of well-being risk disclosure remains unclear. This study investigates how task designers approach risk disclosure in crowdsourced RAI tasks. Drawing on interviews with 23 task designers across academic and industry sectors, we examine how well-being risk is recognized, interpreted, and communicated in practice. Our findings highlight the need to support task designers in identifying and communicating risks not only to support crowdworker well-being but also to strengthen the ethical integrity and technical efficacy of AI development pipelines.

Tarleton Gillespie, Ryland Shaw, Mary L. Gray et al.

As generative AI technologies find more and more real-world applications, the importance of testing their performance and safety seems paramount. "Red-teaming" has quickly become the primary approach to test AI models--prioritized by AI companies, and enshrined in AI policy and regulation. Members of red teams act as adversaries, probing AI systems to test their safety mechanisms and uncover vulnerabilities. Yet we know far too little about this work or its implications. This essay calls for collaboration between computer scientists and social scientists to study the sociotechnical systems surrounding AI technologies, including the work of red-teaming, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the recent past. We highlight the importance of understanding the values and assumptions behind red-teaming, the labor arrangements involved, and the psychological impacts on red-teamers, drawing insights from the lessons learned around the work of content moderation.

Alice Qian, Ziqi Yang, Ryland Shaw et al.

Responsible AI (RAI) content work, such as annotation, moderation, or red teaming for AI safety, often exposes crowd workers to potentially harmful content. While prior work has underscored the importance of communicating well-being risk to employed content moderators, designing effective disclosure mechanisms for crowd workers while balancing worker protection with the needs of task designers and platforms remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, we conducted individual co-design sessions with 15 task designers, 11 crowdworkers, and 3 platform representatives. We investigated task designer preferences for support in disclosing tasks, worker preferences for receiving risk disclosure warnings, and how platform representatives envision their role in shaping risk disclosure practices. We identify design tensions and map the sociotechnical tradeoffs that shape disclosure practices. We contribute design recommendations and feature concepts for risk disclosure mechanisms in the context of RAI content work.