John M. Carroll

Jiyoon Kim, Kentaro Toyama, Sangmi Kim et al.

Generative AI challenges academic integrity not only by enabling students to delegate substantial portions of their academic work, but also by blurring the ethical boundaries by which students distinguish acceptable assistance from misconduct. Drawing on semi-structured interviews (n=20), AI chat logs, and course documents (syllabi, submitted assignments), we investigated how students themselves make moral sense of AI use in academic writing. Our analysis results in a range of novel findings: First, there are at least five distinct sites of AI-use conceptualization, ranging from faculty's intended AI policy, to students' actual AI use. Second, students use over 20 distinct rationalizations to justify AI use, such as that copying AI-generated text is victimless; that any AI text reflecting their own beliefs or their own style is their own writing; or that they are learning more by using AI -- even extensively -- than otherwise. We present a taxonomy of these rationalizations, and show how some of them are employed to justify conscious violations of course policies. Third, student rationalizations occur in both an ad hoc and post hoc manner, and they are not necessarily self-consistent. These and other findings suggest that modern AI presents a steep, ethical, slippery slope which students conceptually slide down, landing far outside the pedagogical goals and expectations of instructors. We discuss implications for educational design and AI policy.

He Zhang, Yueyan Liu, Xin Guan et al.

Semi-structured interviews rely on timely, context-sensitive follow-up questions, yet interviewers' cognitive load and limited domain familiarity can constrain probing depth. We report findings from an LLM-in-the-loop Wizard-of-Oz (WoZ) study that simulates an AI follow-up assistant in live interviewing while preserving human oversight. In our setup, a co-interviewer selectively relayed and could edit AI-generated follow-up questions (AGQs) produced in real time by GPT-4o, enabling a realistic approximation of deployment without fully automating the interaction. Across 17 interviewers with varied qualitative-method expertise, participants raised five interlocking concerns: (1) harmful or discriminatory language and unpredictable interaction harms, (2) undermining interviewees' sense of respect through divided attention and missing nonverbal cues, (3) technology-based participation inequality, (4) unclear responsibility when harms occur, and (5) privacy, disclosure, and compliance risks when AI listens, records, or transcribes sensitive content. We translate these concerns into design and governance implications for safer, more respectful, and more accountable AI-assisted interviewing.

He Zhang, Bumjin Kim, John M. Carroll et al.

The integration of AI-driven support systems within online communities has opened new avenues for enhancing user engagement and support efficiency in recent years. This study investigates the differences in user interactions and engagement within two distinct support channels on the VRChat Discord server: "user support," where human users provide assistance to peers, and "AI support," where an AI chatbot addresses user queries. By analyzing user engagement, response dynamics, and interaction patterns across these channels, we uncover different usage patterns and user attitudes toward each approach. Our research employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the trends in the VRChat community when using AI and user support, highlighting the unique advantages and limitations of AI-driven support compared to traditional human assistance. The findings offer valuable insights into optimizing AI and human support systems, aiming to foster more effective support strategies and create more engaging online communities.