Qian Yang

Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio et al.

Despite the growing consensus that stakeholders affected by AI systems should participate in their design, enormous variation and implicit disagreements exist among current approaches. For researchers and practitioners who are interested in taking a participatory approach to AI design and development, it remains challenging to assess the extent to which any participatory approach grants substantive agency to stakeholders. This article thus aims to ground what we dub the "participatory turn" in AI design by synthesizing existing theoretical literature on participation and through empirical investigation and critique of its current practices. Specifically, we derive a conceptual framework through synthesis of literature across technology design, political theory, and the social sciences that researchers and practitioners can leverage to evaluate approaches to participation in AI design. Additionally, we articulate empirical findings concerning the current state of participatory practice in AI design based on an analysis of recently published research and semi-structured interviews with 12 AI researchers and practitioners. We use these empirical findings to understand the current state of participatory practice and subsequently provide guidance to better align participatory goals and methods in a way that accounts for practical constraints.

Michael A. Hedderich, Natalie N. Bazarova, Wenting Zou et al.

Cyberbullying harms teenagers' mental health, and teaching them upstanding intervention is crucial. Wizard-of-Oz studies show chatbots can scale up personalized and interactive cyberbullying education, but implementing such chatbots is a challenging and delicate task. We created a no-code chatbot design tool for K-12 teachers. Using large language models and prompt chaining, our tool allows teachers to prototype bespoke dialogue flows and chatbot utterances. In offering this tool, we explore teachers' distinctive needs when designing chatbots to assist their teaching, and how chatbot design tools might better support them. Our findings reveal that teachers welcome the tool enthusiastically. Moreover, they see themselves as playwrights guiding both the students' and the chatbot's behaviors, while allowing for some improvisation. Their goal is to enable students to rehearse both desirable and undesirable reactions to cyberbullying in a safe environment. We discuss the design opportunities LLM-Chains offer for empowering teachers and the research opportunities this work opens up.

Hauke Sandhaus, Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Wendy Ju et al.

Safety-critical data, such as crash and near-crash records, are crucial to improving autonomous vehicle (AV) design and development. Sharing such data across AV companies, academic researchers, regulators, and the public can help make all AVs safer. However, AV companies rarely share safety-critical data externally. This paper aims to pinpoint why AV companies are reluctant to share safety-critical data, with an eye on how these barriers can inform new approaches to promote sharing. We interviewed twelve AV company employees who actively work with such data in their day-to-day work. Findings suggest two key, previously unknown barriers to data sharing: (1) Datasets inherently embed salient knowledge that is key to improving AV safety and are resource-intensive. Therefore, data sharing, even within a company, is fraught with politics. (2) Interviewees believed AV safety knowledge is private knowledge that brings competitive edges to their companies, rather than public knowledge for social good. We discuss the implications of these findings for incentivizing and enabling safety-critical AV data sharing, specifically, implications for new approaches to (1) debating and stratifying public and private AV safety knowledge, (2) innovating data tools and data sharing pipelines that enable easier sharing of public AV safety data and knowledge; (3) offsetting costs of curating safety-critical data and incentivizing data sharing.

Mina Lee, Percy Liang, Qian Yang

Large language models (LMs) offer unprecedented language generation capabilities and exciting opportunities for interaction design. However, their highly context-dependent capabilities are difficult to grasp and are often subjectively interpreted. In this paper, we argue that by curating and analyzing large interaction datasets, the HCI community can foster more incisive examinations of LMs' generative capabilities. Exemplifying this approach, we present CoAuthor, a dataset designed for revealing GPT-3's capabilities in assisting creative and argumentative writing. CoAuthor captures rich interactions between 63 writers and four instances of GPT-3 across 1445 writing sessions. We demonstrate that CoAuthor can address questions about GPT-3's language, ideation, and collaboration capabilities, and reveal its contribution as a writing "collaborator" under various definitions of good collaboration. Finally, we discuss how this work may facilitate a more principled discussion around LMs' promises and pitfalls in relation to interaction design. The dataset and an interface for replaying the writing sessions are publicly available at https://coauthor.stanford.edu.

Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio et al.

There is a growing consensus in HCI and AI research that the design of AI systems needs to engage and empower stakeholders who will be affected by AI. However, the manner in which stakeholders should participate in AI design is unclear. This workshop paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices via a survey of recent published research and a dozen semi-structured interviews with AI researchers and practitioners. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design and articulates a set of empirical findings that in ensemble detail out the contemporary landscape of participatory practice in AI design. These findings can help bootstrap a more principled discussion on how PD of AI should move forward across AI, HCI, and other research communities.

Qian Yang

Throughout the course of my Ph.D., I have been designing the user experience (UX) of various machine learning (ML) systems. In this workshop, I share two projects as case studies in which people engage with ML in much more complicated and nuanced ways than the technical HCML work might assume. The first case study describes how cardiology teams in three hospitals used a clinical decision-support system that helps them decide whether and when to implant an artificial heart to a heart failure patient. I demonstrate that physicians cannot draw on their decision-making experience by seeing only patient data on paper. They are also confused by some fundamental premises upon which ML operates. For example, physicians asked: Are ML predictions made based on clinicians' best efforts? Is it ethical to make decisions based on previous patients' collective outcomes? In the second case study, my collaborators and I designed an intelligent text editor, with the goal of improving authors' writing experience with NLP (Natural Language Processing) technologies. We prototyped a number of generative functionalities where the system provides phrase-or-sentence-level writing suggestions upon user request. When writing with the prototype, however, authors shared that they need to "see where the sentence is going two paragraphs later" in order to decide whether the suggestion aligns with their writing; Some even considered adopting machine suggestions as plagiarism, therefore "is simply wrong". By sharing these unexpected and intriguing responses from these real-world ML users, I hope to start a discussion about such previously-unknown complexities and nuances of -- as the workshop proposal states -- "putting ML at the service of people in a way that is accessible, useful, and trustworthy to all".

Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, John Zimmerman

Clinical decision support tools (DST) promise improved healthcare outcomes by offering data-driven insights. While effective in lab settings, almost all DSTs have failed in practice. Empirical research diagnosed poor contextual fit as the cause. This paper describes the design and field evaluation of a radically new form of DST. It automatically generates slides for clinicians' decision meetings with subtly embedded machine prognostics. This design took inspiration from the notion of "Unremarkable Computing", that by augmenting the users' routines technology/AI can have significant importance for the users yet remain unobtrusive. Our field evaluation suggests clinicians are more likely to encounter and embrace such a DST. Drawing on their responses, we discuss the importance and intricacies of finding the right level of unremarkableness in DST design, and share lessons learned in prototyping critical AI systems as a situated experience.