Characterizing and modeling harms from interactions with design patterns in AI interfaces
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines the potential harms that can arise from interactions with AI interfaces designed using problematic patterns
- Focuses on understanding and modeling the sociotechnical risks and impacts of "dark patterns" in AI systems
- Explores transparency, human-centered design, and feedback loops as key considerations for mitigating these harms
Plain English Explanation
This paper investigates the potential negative impacts that can happen when AI systems are designed using certain patterns or techniques that may manipulate or deceive users. These problematic design patterns, often called "dark patterns," can lead to harmful outcomes in how people interact with and are affected by AI.
The researchers aim to better understand and model these sociotechnical risks and harms, looking at factors like transparency, human-centered design, and feedback loops that can contribute to or mitigate these issues. By shedding light on the dynamics at play, the goal is to inform the development of AI systems that are more ethical, trustworthy, and beneficial to users.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by defining "dark patterns" as design choices in AI interfaces that can manipulate, deceive, or otherwise negatively impact users. The researchers then propose a framework for characterizing and modeling the sociotechnical harms that can arise from these patterns.
Key aspects of the framework include:
- Transparency and explainability of the AI system's capabilities, limitations, and decision-making
- Anthropomorphization and the potential for users to develop unrealistic expectations or emotional attachments
- Feedback loops between user behavior and system outputs that can reinforce problematic patterns
- Considerations of human agency and complementarity in human-AI collaboration
The paper also presents a series of case studies illustrating potential harms and discusses design principles and evaluation methods for mitigating these issues.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thoughtful and comprehensive framework for understanding the risks of "dark patterns" in AI interfaces. By focusing on sociotechnical factors like transparency, anthropomorphization, and feedback loops, the researchers highlight important dynamics that are often overlooked.
However, the framework could be further developed and validated through additional case studies and empirical research. Questions remain about the prevalence and severity of these harms in real-world AI systems, as well as the most effective interventions for addressing them.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the ethical, legal, or policy considerations surrounding these issues. Exploring these angles could provide valuable context and guidance for AI developers and policymakers.
Conclusion
This paper makes a valuable contribution by drawing attention to the potential harms that can arise from problematic design patterns in AI interfaces. By proposing a framework for characterizing and modeling these sociotechnical risks, the researchers lay the groundwork for developing more transparent, human-centered, and ethically-aligned AI systems.
As AI continues to permeate more aspects of our lives, this type of research will become increasingly important for ensuring that these technologies are designed and deployed in ways that prioritize user wellbeing and societal benefit.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Characterizing and modeling harms from interactions with design patterns in AI interfaces
Lujain Ibrahim, Luc Rocher, Ana Valdivia
The proliferation of applications using artificial intelligence (AI) systems has led to a growing number of users interacting with these systems through sophisticated interfaces. Human-computer interaction research has long shown that interfaces shape both user behavior and user perception of technical capabilities and risks. Yet, practitioners and researchers evaluating the social and ethical risks of AI systems tend to overlook the impact of anthropomorphic, deceptive, and immersive interfaces on human-AI interactions. Here, we argue that design features of interfaces with adaptive AI systems can have cascading impacts, driven by feedback loops, which extend beyond those previously considered. We first conduct a scoping review of AI interface designs and their negative impact to extract salient themes of potentially harmful design patterns in AI interfaces. Then, we propose Design-Enhanced Control of AI systems (DECAI), a conceptual model to structure and facilitate impact assessments of AI interface designs. DECAI draws on principles from control systems theory -- a theory for the analysis and design of dynamic physical systems -- to dissect the role of the interface in human-AI systems. Through two case studies on recommendation systems and conversational language model systems, we show how DECAI can be used to evaluate AI interface designs.
Read more5/22/2024
0
Deceptive Patterns of Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants
Karim Benharrak, Tim Zindulka, Daniel Buschek
Large Language Models have become an integral part of new intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Many are offered commercially with a chatbot-like UI, such as ChatGPT, and provide little information about their inner workings. This makes this new type of widespread system a potential target for deceptive design patterns. For example, such assistants might exploit hidden costs by providing guidance up until a certain point before asking for a fee to see the rest. As another example, they might sneak unwanted content/edits into longer generated or revised text pieces (e.g. to influence the expressed opinion). With these and other examples, we conceptually transfer several deceptive patterns from the literature to the new context of AI writing assistants. Our goal is to raise awareness and encourage future research into how the UI and interaction design of such systems can impact people and their writing.
Read more4/16/2024
📊
0
AI-Resilient Interfaces
Elena L. Glassman, Ziwei Gu, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld
AI is powerful, but it can make choices that result in objective errors, contextually inappropriate outputs, and disliked options. We need AI-resilient interfaces that help people be resilient to the AI choices that are not right, or not right for them. To support this goal, interfaces need to help users notice and have the context to appropriately judge those AI choices. Existing human-AI interaction guidelines recommend efficient user dismissal, modification, or otherwise efficient recovery from AI choices that a user does not like. However, in order to recover from AI choices, the user must notice them first. This can be difficult. For example, when generating summaries of long documents, a system's exclusion of a detail that is critically important to the user is hard for the user to notice. That detail can be hiding in a wall of text in the original document, and the existence of a summary may tempt the user not to read the original document as carefully. Once noticed, judging AI choices well can also be challenging. The interface may provide very little information that contextualizes the choices, and the user may fall back on assumptions when deciding whether to dismiss, modify, or otherwise recover from an AI choice. Building on prior work, this paper defines key aspects of AI-resilient interfaces, illustrated with examples. Designing interfaces for increased AI-resilience of users will improve AI safety, usability, and utility. This is especially critical where AI-powered systems are used for context- and preference-dominated open-ended AI-assisted tasks, like ideating, summarizing, searching, sensemaking, and the reading and writing of text or code.
Read more5/15/2024
0
Beyond static AI evaluations: advancing human interaction evaluations for LLM harms and risks
Lujain Ibrahim, Saffron Huang, Lama Ahmad, Markus Anderljung
Model evaluations are central to understanding the safety, risks, and societal impacts of AI systems. While most real-world AI applications involve human-AI interaction, most current evaluations (e.g., common benchmarks) of AI models do not. Instead, they incorporate human factors in limited ways, assessing the safety of models in isolation, thereby falling short of capturing the complexity of human-model interactions. In this paper, we discuss and operationalize a definition of an emerging category of evaluations -- human interaction evaluations (HIEs) -- which focus on the assessment of human-model interactions or the process and the outcomes of humans using models. First, we argue that HIEs can be used to increase the validity of safety evaluations, assess direct human impact and interaction-specific harms, and guide future assessments of models' societal impact. Second, we propose a safety-focused HIE design framework -- containing a human-LLM interaction taxonomy -- with three stages: (1) identifying the risk or harm area, (2) characterizing the use context, and (3) choosing the evaluation parameters. Third, we apply our framework to two potential evaluations for overreliance and persuasion risks. Finally, we conclude with tangible recommendations for addressing concerns over costs, replicability, and unrepresentativeness of HIEs.
Read more7/15/2024