Nicholas Diakopoulos

Mowafak Allaham, Nicholas Diakopoulos

The growing accessibility of Large Language Models via conversational interfaces capable of responding to users' questions by drawing on, synthesizing, and citing information from the web (i.e., Generative Search Engines) has simplified the information-seeking process for users. However, with the proliferation of AI-generated content on the web, it is unclear whether these engines can reliably omit citing synthetic sources (i.e., AI-generated sources). Should these engines be unable to do so, this puts users at risk of harm by treating information from AI-generated sources synthesized in responses of generative search engines as equivalent to information from authoritative or official sources. In a step towards identifying whether AI-generated sources are being cited by these engines, this work presents an audit of four generative search engines (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity) using a total of 712 real-world human-generated queries spanning domains of public importance: politics, health, and the environment. Our findings show evidence of AI-generated sources being cited across all four generative search engines (~16% of cited sources) and identifies key source web domains these sources belong to that are frequently cited across these engines and topics. In addition, we observed that generative search engines include a somewhat narrow set of repeatedly cited domains while predominantly surfacing a large number of minimally cited domains in responses to users' queries. These findings contribute to the growing body of work on assessing the risks of generative search engines with the objective of increasing public awareness of their limitations and encouraging appropriate measures to improve information quality and governance of these systems.

Sachita Nishal, Jasmine Sinchai, Nicholas Diakopoulos

Science and technology journalists today face challenges in finding newsworthy leads due to increased workloads, reduced resources, and expanding scientific publishing ecosystems. Given this context, we explore computational methods to aid these journalists' news discovery in terms of time-efficiency and agency. In particular, we prototyped three computational information subsidies into an interactive tool that we used as a probe to better understand how such a tool may offer utility or more broadly shape the practices of professional science journalists. Our findings highlight central considerations around science journalists' agency, context, and responsibilities that such tools can influence and could account for in design. Based on this, we suggest design opportunities for greater and longer-term user agency; incorporating contextual, personal and collaborative notions of newsworthiness; and leveraging flexible interfaces and generative models. Overall, our findings contribute a richer view of the sociotechnical system around computational news discovery tools, and suggest ways to improve such tools to better support the practices of science journalists.

Julia Barnett, Kimon Kieslich, Natali Helberger et al.

As the rapid proliferation of AI systems and harms spurs efforts in AI governance around the world, prioritizing among competing policy options has become increasingly challenging for policymakers and researchers. We introduce a methodology for identifying viable policy options to mitigate specified AI harms, helping policymakers and researchers target areas that warrant greater time and resource investment. This method combines participatory evaluation of policies, expert assessment of implementation costs, and an LLM-based assessment of perceived harm mitigation under each policy option. We leverage a genetic algorithm-based simulation study to explore a vast solution space of potential policy combinations, and examine how outcomes change under different weightings of cost, participatory input, and harm mitigation. We find that this method enables exploration of different balances between participatory and expert components, allowing policymakers and researchers to assess how much weight to assign to each. We argue that the diversity of viable policy combinations found by the genetic algorithm could be a useful starting point for deliberation. This method operationalizes existing work on participatory AI by integrating it directly into practical policy development pipelines.

Mowafak Allaham, Nicholas Diakopoulos

Gaining insight into the potential negative impacts of emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in society is a challenge for implementing anticipatory governance approaches. One approach to produce such insight is to use Large Language Models (LLMs) to support and guide experts in the process of ideating and exploring the range of undesirable consequences of emerging technologies. However, performance evaluations of LLMs for such tasks are still needed, including examining the general quality of generated impacts but also the range of types of impacts produced and resulting biases. In this paper, we demonstrate the potential for generating high-quality and diverse impacts of AI in society by fine-tuning completion models (GPT-3 and Mistral-7B) on a diverse sample of articles from news media and comparing those outputs to the impacts generated by instruction-based (GPT-4 and Mistral-7B-Instruct) models. We examine the generated impacts for coherence, structure, relevance, and plausibility and find that the generated impacts using Mistral-7B, a small open-source model fine-tuned on impacts from the news media, tend to be qualitatively on par with impacts generated using a more capable and larger scale model such as GPT-4. Moreover, we find that impacts produced by instruction-based models had gaps in the production of certain categories of impacts in comparison to fine-tuned models. This research highlights a potential bias in the range of impacts generated by state-of-the-art LLMs and the potential of aligning smaller LLMs on news media as a scalable alternative to generate high quality and more diverse impacts in support of anticipatory governance approaches.

Mowafak Allaham, Kimon Kieslich, Nicholas Diakopoulos

Expert-driven frameworks for impact assessments (IAs) may inadvertently overlook the effects of AI technologies on the public's social behavior, policy, and the cultural and geographical contexts shaping the perception of AI and the impacts around its use. This research explores the potentials of fine-tuning LLMs on negative impacts of AI reported in a diverse sample of articles from 266 news domains spanning 30 countries around the world to incorporate more diversity into IAs. Our findings highlight (1) the potential of fine-tuned open-source LLMs in supporting IA of AI technologies by generating high-quality negative impacts across four qualitative dimensions: coherence, structure, relevance, and plausibility, and (2) the efficacy of small open-source LLM (Mistral-7B) fine-tuned on impacts from news media in capturing a wider range of categories of impacts that GPT-4 had gaps in covering.

Joris Veerbeek, Nicholas Diakopoulos

This paper introduces a system using generative AI agents to create tip sheets for investigative data reporting. Our system employs three specialized agents--an analyst, a reporter, and an editor--to collaboratively generate and refine tips from datasets. We validate this approach using real-world investigative stories, demonstrating that our agent-based system generally generates more newsworthy and accurate insights compared to a baseline model without agents, although some variability was noted between different stories. Our findings highlight the potential of generative AI to provide leads for investigative data reporting.

Julia Barnett, Kimon Kieslich, Nicholas Diakopoulos

The rapid advancement of AI technologies yields numerous future impacts on individuals and society. Policymakers are tasked to react quickly and establish policies that mitigate those impacts. However, anticipating the effectiveness of policies is a difficult task, as some impacts might only be observable in the future and respective policies might not be applicable to the future development of AI. In this work we develop a method for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate the efficacy of a given piece of policy at mitigating specified negative impacts. We do so by using GPT-4 to generate scenarios both pre- and post-introduction of policy and translating these vivid stories into metrics based on human perceptions of impacts. We leverage an already established taxonomy of impacts of generative AI in the media environment to generate a set of scenario pairs both mitigated and non-mitigated by the transparency policy in Article 50 of the EU AI Act. We then run a user study (n=234) to evaluate these scenarios across four risk-assessment dimensions: severity, plausibility, magnitude, and specificity to vulnerable populations. We find that this transparency legislation is perceived to be effective at mitigating harms in areas such as labor and well-being, but largely ineffective in areas such as social cohesion and security. Through this case study we demonstrate the efficacy of our method as a tool to iterate on the effectiveness of policy for mitigating various negative impacts. We expect this method to be useful to researchers or other stakeholders who want to brainstorm the potential utility of different pieces of policy or other mitigation strategies.

Sachita Nishal, Eric Lee, Nicholas Diakopoulos

This study offers an initial evaluation of a human-in-the-loop system leveraging GPT-4 (a large language model or LLM), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to identify and define jargon terms in scientific abstracts, based on readers' self-reported knowledge. The system achieves fairly high recall in identifying jargon and preserves relative differences in readers' jargon identification, suggesting personalization as a feasible use-case for LLMs to support sense-making of complex information. Surprisingly, using only abstracts for context to generate definitions yields slightly more accurate and higher quality definitions than using RAG-based context from the fulltext of an article. The findings highlight the potential of generative AI for assisting science reporters, and can inform future work on developing tools to simplify dense documents.

Nick Hagar, Wilma Agustianto, Nicholas Diakopoulos

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in newsroom workflows, but their tendency to hallucinate poses risks to core journalistic practices of sourcing, attribution, and accuracy. We evaluate three widely used tools - ChatGPT, Gemini, and NotebookLM - on a reporting-style task grounded in a 300-document corpus related to TikTok litigation and policy in the U.S. We vary prompt specificity and context size and annotate sentence-level outputs using a taxonomy to measure hallucination type and severity. Across our sample, 30% of model outputs contained at least one hallucination, with rates approximately three times higher for Gemini and ChatGPT (40%) than for NotebookLM (13%). Qualitatively, most errors did not involve invented entities or numbers; instead, we observed interpretive overconfidence - models added unsupported characterizations of sources and transformed attributed opinions into general statements. These patterns reveal a fundamental epistemological mismatch: While journalism requires explicit sourcing for every claim, LLMs generate authoritative-sounding text regardless of evidentiary support. We propose journalism-specific extensions to existing hallucination taxonomies and argue that effective newsroom tools need architectures that enforce accurate attribution rather than optimize for fluency.

Julia Barnett, Kimon Kieslich, Jasmine Sinchai et al.

Scenario building is an established method to anticipate the future of emerging technologies. Its primary goal is to use narratives to map future trajectories of technology development and sociotechnical adoption. Following this process, risks and benefits can be identified early on, and strategies can be developed that strive for desirable futures. In recent years, computer science has adopted this method and applied it to various technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI). Because computing technologies play such an important role in shaping modern societies, it is worth exploring how scenarios are being used as an anticipatory tool in the field -- and what possible traditional uses of scenarios are not yet covered but have the potential to enrich the field. We address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review on the use of scenario building methods in computer science over the last decade (n = 59). We guide the review along two main questions. First, we aim to uncover how scenarios are used in computing literature, focusing especially on the rationale for why scenarios are used. Second, in following the potential of scenario building to enhance inclusivity in research, we dive deeper into the participatory element of the existing scenario building literature in computer science.

Julia Barnett, Kimon Kieslich, Natali Helberger et al.

The potential for negative impacts of AI has rapidly become more pervasive around the world, and this has intensified a need for responsible AI governance. While many regulatory bodies endorse risk-based approaches and a multitude of risk mitigation practices are proposed by companies and academic scholars, these approaches are commonly expert-centered and thus lack the inclusion of a significant group of stakeholders. Ensuring that AI policies align with democratic expectations requires methods that prioritize the voices and needs of those impacted. In this work we develop a participative and forward-looking approach to inform policy-makers and academics that grounds the needs of lay stakeholders at the forefront and enriches the development of risk mitigation strategies. Our approach (1) maps potential mitigation and prevention strategies of negative AI impacts that assign responsibility to various stakeholders, (2) explores the importance and prioritization thereof in the eyes of laypeople, and (3) presents these insights in policy fact sheets, i.e., a digestible format for informing policy processes. We emphasize that this approach is not targeted towards replacing policy-makers; rather our aim is to present an informative method that enriches mitigation strategies and enables a more participatory approach to policy development.

Jack Bandy, Nicholas Diakopoulos

When a re-election rally for the U.S. president drew smaller crowds than expected in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many people attributed the low turnout to collective action organized by TikTok users. Motivated by TikTok's surge in popularity and its growing sociopolitical implications, this work explores the role of TikTok's recommender algorithm in amplifying call-to-action videos that promoted collective action against the Tulsa rally. We analyze call-to-action videos from more than 600 TikTok users and compare the visibility (i.e. play count) of these videos with other videos published by the same users. Evidence suggests that Tulsa-related videos generally received more plays, and in some cases the amplification was dramatic. For example, one user's call-to-action video was played over 2 million times, but no other video by the user exceeded 100,000 plays, and the user had fewer than 20,000 followers. Statistical modeling suggests that the increased play count is explained by increased engagement rather than any systematic amplification of call-to-action videos. We conclude by discussing the implications of recommender algorithms amplifying sociopolitical messages, and motivate several promising areas for future work.

Jack Bandy, Nicholas Diakopoulos

This work presents an audit study of Apple News as a sociotechnical news curation system that exercises gatekeeping power in the media. We examine the mechanisms behind Apple News as well as the content presented in the app, outlining the social, political, and economic implications of both aspects. We focus on the Trending Stories section, which is algorithmically curated, and the Top Stories section, which is human-curated. Results from a crowdsourced audit showed minimal content personalization in the Trending Stories section, and a sock-puppet audit showed no location-based content adaptation. Finally, we perform an extended two-month data collection to compare the human-curated Top Stories section with the algorithmically curated Trending Stories section. Within these two sections, human curation outperformed algorithmic curation in several measures of source diversity, concentration, and evenness. Furthermore, algorithmic curation featured more "soft news" about celebrities and entertainment, while editorial curation featured more news about policy and international events. To our knowledge, this study provides the first data-backed characterization of Apple News in the United States.

Yelena Mejova, Amy X. Zhang, Nicholas Diakopoulos et al.

How do news sources tackle controversial issues? In this work, we take a data-driven approach to understand how controversy interplays with emotional expression and biased language in the news. We begin by introducing a new dataset of controversial and non-controversial terms collected using crowdsourcing. Then, focusing on 15 major U.S. news outlets, we compare millions of articles discussing controversial and non-controversial issues over a span of 7 months. We find that in general, when it comes to controversial issues, the use of negative affect and biased language is prevalent, while the use of strong emotion is tempered. We also observe many differences across news sources. Using these findings, we show that we can indicate to what extent an issue is controversial, by comparing it with other issues in terms of how they are portrayed across different media.