Beyond "Made with AI": Visualizing Provenance Density to Mitigate the Transparency Penalty

As generative AI makes polished prose cheap to produce, users can no longer rely on fluency as a proxy for truth. We call this failure mode the Fluency Trap: users trust fluent hallucinations while also discounting accurate content once it is disclosed as AI-generated. Binary ``Made with AI'' labels respond with authorship disclosure, but they do not show what supports a claim. We propose Provenance Density, an evidence-visualization interface that shows the density of verified claims in a text. In a user study with 81 participants, an idealized Provenance Density interface produced a large discernment gap between truth and fabrication ($+4.15$ points, $d=1.82$), whereas participants given no signal showed no detectable discrimination. A technical audit with 200 samples shows that retrieval density alone is insufficient; unexpectedly, the Consistency Veto carries most of the discriminative signal on dynamic queries. As AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from human writing, effective transparency must move from authorship disclosure toward evidence visualization.

Knowing Is Not Enough: Information Retrievability as a Precondition to Effective LLM Oversight

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review. Prior research locates such failures in users' capability to review LLM output or their engagement in doing so. We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight and posit that error detection is more effective when oversight-relevant information is accessible to users at the moment of review. Across two randomized lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer-facing employees, we show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning, while cues that reactivate such reasoning help sustain detection under repeated LLM use. Theoretically, we identify information retrievability as a distinct precondition for effective oversight and specify generative encoding and cue-supported reactivation as mechanisms that build and sustain it. Practically, lightweight onboarding self-explanations and daily retrieval cues can make human oversight more resilient as LLM use becomes routine.

Generative AI Alignment with Hinduism's Theological Plurality and Sacred Representation

Generative AI systems are increasingly used to answer personal questions and mediate everyday practices, including religion. However, existing discussions around AI alignment and ethics have largely centered secular, Western, and Abrahamic assumptions about religion, offering limited attention to other faith-based traditions. In this paper, we examine how Hindu users engage with generative AI systems in relation to their religious knowledge, belief, and practice. Drawing on 15 semi-structured interviews with Bangladeshi Hindu participants, we analyze how users interpret AI-generated religious representations, scriptural explanations, devotional interactions, and synthetic religious media. We found that AI can be both accessible and ethically troubling. While AI supported scriptural inquiry, devotional visualization, and religious storytelling, our study also identified concerns about theological flattening, cultural misrepresentation, devotional manipulation, and the simulation of sacred presence and authority. We conclude by arguing that religious alignment in generative AI requires interpretive alignment: systems that disclose their limits, preserve plurality, and avoid simulating sacred authority and sycophantic personalization.

Are Concept Bottleneck Models Effective as Decision-Support Systems?

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are interpretable-by-design neural networks that detect human-understandable concepts from the input and use them to generate predictions. By allowing users to inspect the concepts underlying a prediction and explore how predictions change under alternative concept configurations, CBMs have emerged as one of the most prominent approaches to supporting human-AI collaboration. However, user studies investigating their actual effectiveness as decision-support systems remain limited. We present two large-scale user studies (N participants = 705, N observations = 6,959) evaluating how concept-based explanations and user interventions on the model's concepts affect the performance of the human-AI team in two distinct binary classification tasks. Our results show that CBMs, and particularly their interactive component, can improve human-AI team accuracy relative to both unaided human performance and performance with non-interpretable AI support. However, these benefits emerge only under certain conditions: classification tasks perceived as difficult, easily identifiable concepts, and active interaction with the model. We also discuss how inaccurate concept detection may undermine users' trust in the model. Overall, this work provides practical guidance for the deployment of CBMs as effective decision-support tools.

Q&A or Document-Based? The Effects of Interface Type on How Screen Reader Users Access Interconnected Documents

Blind and low-vision (BLV) users are increasingly engaging with large language model (LLM) interfaces to access documents, but it is unclear how such systems support or hinder their ability to build interconnected knowledge. To examine this gap, we compared a Question-Answer Interface (QAI) that supports open-ended conversational inquiry, with a Document Interface (DI) based mostly on traditional structured text document navigation. We recruited 16 BLV screen reader users where they used both interfaces to explore two fictional worlds. Data from interaction logs, concept maps, decision-based tasks, and semi-structured interviews provide comparative insights into how interface design supports knowledge construction. Findings show that participants visited more distinct documents with the DI and formed larger and more correct mental models with the DI than with the QAI. They were also more able to apply knowledge they had gained. Simultaneously, many still preferred the QAI and often estimated that they had explored more, formed better mental models and applied their models better when acquiring the information with the QAI, despite this not being the case. Our analysis suggests possible interface design reasons for these differences and highlights some of the risks introduced by using question-answer interfaces to access information spaces.

AI emotional support is better only when chosen, but shifts preferences even when it is not

People increasingly face a novel decision when seeking emotional support: human or AI. In existing studies, AI's empathic messages are rated as well as or better than humans'. But these studies either assigned the support source or honored people's choice. In real life, support is often incongruent with choice, as people want one source and receive the other. Across three experiments (N = 1,951), participants chose whether to share an emotional experience with a human or an AI, then were randomly assigned to a congruent or incongruent partner. AI support was rated as superior only among those who had chosen it. Yet regardless of congruence, interacting with AI increased willingness to choose it again. In a 28-day study with OpenAI (N = 981), daily conversations shifted preferences toward AI and away from humans, but only when conversations turned personal. Emotional support choices are thus path-dependent, progressively redirecting away from human connection.

From Style Replication to Style Exploration: Enabling Art Style Exploration with Analyze-Experiment-Resituate Framework

Art style is a signature of professional digital artists that develops through repeated experimentation, reflection, and adaptation. While generative AI (GenAI) can reproduce styles with high fidelity, current tools provide limited support for exploring new stylistic directions and may encourage style replication over exploration. To address this gap, we propose Analyze-Experiment-Resituate (AER), a framework for AI-assisted style exploration derived from interviews with 10 professional digital artists. Rather than prioritizing visually appealing outputs alone, AER supports three core practices of style exploration, including interpreting references, trying out stylistic possibilities, and reflecting on how emerging styles may be received. Specifically, AER enabled artists to (1) analyze artworks into interpretable stylistic elements, (2) have controllable experimentation guided by their own choices, and (3) resituate emerging styles through simulated social perspectives. We implemented AER in a prototype system and evaluated it in a controlled study with 16 artists. Compared with a direct style-transfer workflow, AER increased artists' agency and reflection as they pursued new stylistic directions. A two-week field study with four artists revealed how the AER framework influenced daily style exploration, such as reflection, experimentation, and stylistic decision-making at each stage. We discuss opportunities and challenges in designing AI-assisted style-exploration workflows, and outline implications for future artistic support tools.

Conversational versus Dashboard Explainable AI for UAV Intrusion Detection: An Empirical Study of Operator Trust and Reliance

Machine learning-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) have demonstrated superior performance in securing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) networks. However, the 'black-box' nature of these models, combined with the high dimensionality of multimodal cyber-physical data, poses significant interpretability challenges. Static visualization dashboards may struggle to present complex relationships among multimodal cyber-physical features in a form that is easy for operators to inspect and interpret. To address this, we propose a Conversational XAI interface powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to facilitate on-demand investigation. In a controlled experiment with participants, we systematically evaluated the impact of this conversational interface versus a traditional XAI Dashboard on operator understanding, trust, and reliance during post-incident auditing tasks. Our results suggest that the conversational interface was perceived as more useful than the dashboard, potentially because it helped participants access and synthesize relevant information more easily. However, this benefit was accompanied by a lower level of appropriate self-reliance, indicating a potential risk of over-reliance. One possible interpretation is that the natural-language responses made the AI advice easier to accept, which may have reduced participants' tendency to verify the underlying evidence when the IDS was incorrect. These findings point to a potential trade-off in human-AI collaboration for UAV intrusion auditing: interaction mechanisms that improve perceived usability may also increase the risk of inappropriate reliance. We conclude by discussing design implications for future XAI systems that balance seamless interaction with cognitive forcing functions to foster appropriate reliance.

From Wearable Data to Personalized and Actionable Health Insights

Commercial wearable devices continuously capture rich physiological data (e.g., heart rate, respiration), opening new possibilities for monitoring health conditions, notably around stress. Despite their promise, turning raw wearable physiological data streams into visualizations that surface stress-related insights in daily activities, and that ultimately foster reflection, awareness, and better stress management, remains a significant challenge. The data are noisy and context-dependent: the same spike in heart rate can come from sprinting, a tense presentation, or laughing with friends. To address these challenges, we propose a framework that combines user annotations with wearable data to support better stress management. We introduce a web framework offering interactive visualizations that layer daily activities, stress events, and interventions onto raw physiological streams, enabling users to reflect and identify trends. In a four-week pilot with seven university graduate and undergraduate student participants who logged 269 events, our tool revealed patterns between different types of interventions and stress: social interaction reduced average heart rate by 4.35 to 5.0 beats per minute, deliberate rest reduced average Garmin stress scores by 10.03 to 13.83 points, and mindfulness activities decreased average HRV by 6.61 to 13.22 milliseconds.

From Information to Delegation: Mapping Human-AI Financial Decision Making

As AI increasingly participates in human decision making, understanding how decision-making authority is distributed between humans and AI has become a fundamental behavioural question. We introduce a behavioural measurement framework combining intent and delegated decision authority to quantify what consumers seek from AI and how much decision-making authority they assign to it. Applied to 1.5 million real-world ChatGPT and Gemini interactions from 6,304 users in the United States and India, we find that financial services are already a substantial AI use case. Consumers overwhelmingly use AI to retrieve information and shape financial judgement, while delegation of financial execution remains rare. By shifting attention from conversation topics to delegated decision authority, this work establishes a behavioural baseline for measuring the transition to increasingly agentic AI.

Evaluating the Impact of Explainable AI on Trust in AI-Assisted Code Review

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate code review, but the reasoning behind their decisions remains hard to understand. Developers struggle to assess the validity of LLM-generated reviews, making it difficult to gauge how much trust to place in them. The role of Explainable AI (XAI) in code review and its impact on trust remain underexplored. Objective: We study the influence of XAI on developer trust in AI-assisted code reviews. Method: We conducted a within-subjects user study with 34 participants, comparing three LLM-based code review systems with varying levels of XAI support: Condition A (detailed explanation and review feedback), Condition B (review feedback only), and Condition C (no explanations). Participants reviewed real-world code change requests alongside the AI-generated reviews. We measured trust perceptions, agreement with the AI recommendation, the reasoning given for each decision, and the time taken. Results: The level of explanation significantly influences both trust and agreement with AI recommendations, but in different ways. Full explanations (A) yield the highest perceived trust (M = 3.99/5) but not the highest agreement, whereas moderate explanations (B) achieve the highest agreement (89.22%). This could suggest that more explanation prompts developers to question AI recommendations more frequently. No explanations (C) results in the lowest trust and agreement. Explanation level did not significantly affect review time. The most commonly cited reasons for decisions were code readability and correctness. Conclusion: Incorporating XAI into code review significantly changes trust perceptions and agreement with AI recommendations. These results inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI-based code review systems, as well as studies on the human factors of AI-assisted software development.

Interrupting the Chain: Human Perception of AI-Generated Disinformation Through a Kill Chain Lens

Generative AI enables customized misinformation at scale, yet defenses remain largely reactive. We present empirical findings from a human-subject study (n=504 participants, n=2,438 judgments) in which users classified news fragments by origin (human vs. machine) and veracity (real vs. fake). We organize results using an adapted cybersecurity kill chain as a taxonomy for intervention, mapping perception data onto stages of a cognitive attack lifecycle. Three key findings emerge: (1) a perception-accuracy gap where heightened suspicion does not improve detection; (2) modern LLMs frequently produce human-indistinguishable text; and (3) an asymmetric cognitive fatigue effect where fake-news detection degrades by 10.2 percentage points under sustained exposure while AI-origin detection remains stable. These findings identify candidate intervention points for proactive defense against AI-driven disinformation.

Humanly: A Configurable and Traceable Environment for Human-AI Collaborative Writing

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

I wanted it to feel more personal: Customization of social AI as AI individualism in practice

Despite the growing availability of customizable social artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, Grok, and Character.ai, we know little about how users actively shape social AI to reflect their personal preferences. This study examines why and how users (N = 169) customize social AI through the lens of the newly developed concept of AI individualism. Through reflexive thematic analysis of open-ended responses, we identified several motivations for customization, including (1) enhanced pragmatic support, (2) emotional support or companionship, (3) trust and reliability, (4) pushback, (5) a tailored degree of human likeness, (6) creativity or playfulness, and (7) having the AI function as an extension of the self. In line with the concept of AI individualism, our findings show that, for many users, customization is a co-creative process between the human and the AI that is perceived as strengthening support, autonomy, ownership, and engagement, potentially contributing to a closer and more personal relationship. Through customization users may come to view social AI as a personalized social resource that increases their sense of individualism, freedom, and control. We discuss how these perceptions may foster pseudo-autonomy, whereby customization creates an illusion of individual control over powerful social AI systems.

It Matters How You Say It: Exploring Rhetorical Patterns for AI-Assisted Information Evaluation

Prior work on AI-assisted information evaluation has largely focused on what AI systems communicate, comparing explanation types and formats, with responses predominantly cast in directive rhetoric where the system delivers a verdict and the user passively accepts it. While debate-style interactions have recently shown promise in prompting critical evaluation over deference, the rhetorical patterns that structure AI responses and how they might induce reflection, uncertainty, or independent reasoning remain largely unexamined. To address this, we investigated eight rhetorical patterns known to induce contemplation: Intentional Misleading, Interpretive Alternative, Scaffold Explanation, Triggering Distrust, Information Distortion, Alternative Framing, Socratic Questioning, and an Oracle baseline. Through a within-subject study with n=98 participants on a hint-on-demand fact verification task, we observed preliminary evidence that Scaffold Explanation were associated with the highest accuracy gains, and encouraging deeper reflection. Surprisingly, the adversarial conditions also improved accuracy modestly. Participants preferred Alternative Framing most and Interpretive Alternative least, largely due to the latter's perceived time cost. We discuss the implications of designing conversational agents with varied rhetorical styles and the trade-offs among user performance, satisfaction, and contemplation.

Human-in-the-Loop User Feedback Affects Perceived Accuracy and Trust, but Task Subjectivity Matters

While ML can produce complex models beyond those that a human could produce manually, incorporating human input can often improve performance beyond purely data-driven models. While this feedback could come from system designers or domain experts, in many cases, the end users who regularly use the system will naturally develop an understanding of its flaws and desire the ability to change the system's behavior based on their knowledge. While soliciting feedback from end users can result in significant model improvement over time, introducing these feedback techniques can also affect several human factors-such as trust or perception of system accuracy-that are not yet fully understood and have different effects reported in the existing literature. Therefore, we sought to build on the existing research to further explore how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy in different contexts. We present three controlled experiments that study the effects of interactive feedback collections on user impressions in domains with objective and subjective feedback. The results show that in a context where there is an objectively correct answer, providing HITL feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. However, when the feedback being provided involved subjective opinion, no such negative bias was observed. Furthermore, in the objective context, participants distrusted the system over time, whereas participants in the subjective context mistrusted the system over time. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing different types of end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

LLMs for health: Perceived benefits, risks, intention to use AI chatbots, and willingness to self-disclose across sensitive health topics

AI chatbots are increasingly used for answering health-related questions. This study examines the role of topic type discussed with an AI chatbot and individual characteristics on perceived benefits and risks, intention to use an AI chatbot, and willingness to self-disclose health information. We conducted an online experiment with a 2 (topic type: physical versus psychological, between-subjects) x 2 (topic sensitivity: low versus high, within-subjects) mixed design among a Dutch representative sample (N = 1,388). Results showed that perceived benefits were positively associated with intention and willingness to self-disclose, while perceived risks were negatively associated. Moreover, participants reported higher usage intentions for low-sensitive topics compared to high-sensitive topics. Furthermore, perceptions, intention, and willingness to self-disclose varied by individual characteristics. Overall, our findings suggest that intentions to use AI chatbots and self-disclosure of health-related information are primarily related to perceived benefits and risks and to personal characteristics rather than to topic type.

Beyond Accuracy: How Humans Evaluate Legally Correct but Socially Controversial Legal Advice from Machines

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

Exploring the Value of Diverse LLM Explanations in Introductory Programming

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

AI Healthcare Chatbots as Information Infrastructure: A Large-Scale Study of User-Reported Breakdowns

AI healthcare chatbots are increasingly used to support health information seeking and self-management, yet their performance and impact on users remains to be studied. This study examines over 15,000 user reviews from 59 AI healthcare chatbot apps to explore how these systems function in everyday informational and emotional contexts. Topic modeling and interpretive analysis identify three recurring breakdowns: access barriers and service unreliability, user experience and interaction quality, and billing and customer support issues. Privacy and security concerns are associated with the most negative experiences. By framing AI healthcare chatbots as information infrastructures, our findings highlight how failures in access, usability, and trust affect users, offering actionable insights for designers, policymakers, and information professionals aiming to improve digital health systems.

AI-Mediated Negotiation: Design Reflections and Lessons

Conversational AI promises a new kind of preparation for high-stakes workplace negotiations -- personalized, interactive, and capable of simulating realistic resistance. That promise is intuitive. We built Trucey, a theory-driven coaching system, to test it. The system encoded four assumptions: that articulation supports clarification, that personalization builds strategic competence, that chunked delivery reduces cognitive load, and that structured scaffolding removes metacognitive burden. A pre-registered experiment (N=267) and interviews (N=15) complicated each of them. Notably, the static handbook we included as a passive control outperformed both AI conditions on empowerment and usability. We reflect on why: each assumption encoded a specific model of how preparation unfolds, and the findings revealed that conversational AI imposes a linear execution model on a task that is fundamentally recursive. We identify an unexamined scope condition on established HAI design guidelines and close with a sequencing principle -- map before path, path before simulation -- for future AI coaching design.

Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence

Recent work has raised concerns about the influence of sycophantic AI on user judgment and relationships. One proposed mitigation, which has received regulatory attention, is to warn users about potentially harmful AI behaviors such as sycophancy. In a preregistered experiment in which participants (N = 2,610) discussed real interpersonal conflicts with an AI system, we test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence. We find that a basic AI disclosure (``This chatbot is AI'') has no detectable effect. Labeling the system as sycophantic (``...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions, reducing perceived objectivity and trust, but it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict. Our results reveal a gap between AI perception and AI influence: by shifting perception without reducing influence, warning-based interventions may offer a false sense of protection. Addressing the harms of sycophancy will therefore require understanding the specific mechanisms through which it shapes judgment, and improving model behavior itself.

Correct Yourself, Keep My Trust: How Self-Correction and Social Connection Shape Credibility in Social Chatbots

When social chatbots make mistakes, and they do, how they recover determines whether users trust them again. Social chatbots are increasingly integrated into everyday life, yet they remain prone to generating convincing but inaccurate information. The social connection they build with users makes such errors particularly consequential. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=120) comparing three error correction strategies: a webpage retraction, self-correction by the same social chatbot, and correction by an expert chatbot. Our results reveal two key findings. First, all three strategies corrected the error equally well, but only self-correction did so without damaging the chatbot's credibility: participants rated self-correcting chatbots significantly higher in both trustworthiness and perceived expertise than chatbots whose errors were corrected by external sources. Second, the strength of the user's social connection with the chatbot, measured through social attraction and self-disclosure, significantly predicted the magnitude of belief change, but only when the chatbot corrected itself. Outsourcing corrections to an external source severed this link entirely. These findings suggest that social chatbots should correct their own mistakes rather than outsource corrections, and that investing in social connection is a functional mechanism that amplifies correction effectiveness, not merely a design feature. We discuss implications for designing chatbots that maintain long-term credibility while effectively addressing their own errors.

Talking to Your Data: Exploring Embodied Conversation as an Interface for Personal Health Reflection

Personal health data from wearables are typically presented through dashboards of charts and summary statistics, requiring users to actively interpret patterns and implications. We explore an alternative interaction paradigm: engaging with personal health data through an embodied conversational agent that facilitates objective data reflection in dialogue with the user. We present a system that combines lightweight preprocessing of wearable data with a Unity-based embodied character. Internally, the system follows a dual-agent design in which an Observer agent extracts descriptive statistics and temporal trends, and a Presenter agent communicates these findings through "spoken statistics," intentionally refraining from clinical advice to isolate the impact of the interaction modality. We evaluate this approach through a simulated-self user study (N=5) using a within-subject design. Participants adopted health personas and goals derived from the LifeSnaps dataset to compare traditional dashboard exploration with embodied conversational reflection. Our evaluation focuses on perceived understanding, the specificity of generated actions, and the cognitive shift from passive viewing to active sensemaking. The paper contributes a functional prototype, a design pattern for objective health data narrative generation, and early empirical insights into how embodiment affects the interpretation of personal health metrics.

Nonslop: A Gamified Experiment in Human-AI Collaborative Writing

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.

From Perception to Action: Can UI Interventions Foster Sustainable LLM Chatbot

LLM-powered chatbots are increasingly embedded in everyday workflows, raising sustainability concerns due to their energy use. Most mitigation strategies emphasize model or infrastructure efficiency, while the user-interface (UI) layer remains underexplored despite its potential to shape interaction behavior. We investigate whether sustainability-oriented UI interventions can increase users' energy awareness and encourage more energy-responsible chatbot use without reducing usability. We first conducted a baseline survey with 77 participants to assess awareness and receptiveness to intervention concepts. Guided by prior work on persuasive technology and choice architecture, we implemented a web-based chatbot prototype with a three-mode switch (Energy-efficient, Balanced, Performance), per-response energy feedback, pre-send energy estimates, a usage metrics dashboard, and energy analogies. We then evaluated the prototype in a five-day field study with 11 participants. In the baseline survey, 94.8% of respondents reported at least some awareness of AI energy use, yet 88.3% misestimated actual consumption. Although concern about environmental impact was high, only 39.0% indicated willingness to accept a performance trade-off for lower energy use. In the field study, Energy-efficient mode accounted for 55.8% of logged prompts, while 90.9% self-reported actively choosing Eco-mode when high accuracy was not required. Participants did not reduce prompt length, suggesting mode switching as the primary behavioral mechanism. Sustainability-oriented UI interventions can improve awareness and support more energy-responsible interaction patterns in LLM chatbots. These effects are best interpreted as behavioral and model-based estimates that complement backend efficiency work, and the provided prototype and replication package support further research on energy-aware conversational AI design.

Seeing the Hivemind: A Consensus-Aware Interaction Technique for Mitigating AI Homogenization

People are increasingly using AI for creative tasks such as writing. While adoption continues to grow, this form of use risks undermining individual creativity locally and reducing the heterogeneity of creative output at scale. In response, we introduce the Semantic Repulsion Technique (SRT) and evaluate it both computationally and through a study with 16 participants who regularly use AI for creative tasks. Our computational assessment reveals that SRT increases semantic diversity by 85--167\% while reducing consensus phrases by 43--95\% across task modes. In the user study, SRT outputs received higher usefulness ($p = .019$, $W = .208$) and coherence ratings ( $p = .006$, $W = .260$); 68.8\% of participants were willing to use SRT-Strong for multiple tasks versus 18.8\% for baselines. Originality and coherence ratings were positively correlated across all systems ($ρ= +.40$ to $+.67$), suggesting that divergence need not compromise readability. Taken together, these preliminary findings can inform the design of AI systems that aim to support everyday creativity without contributing to homogenization.

The Role of Instructional Guidance in Generative AI-Assisted Learning: Empirical Evidence from Construction Engineering Education

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support self-directed learning, yet student interaction with such systems often remains unstructured, limiting engagement in deeper cognitive processes. This study examines how instructional guidance shapes student and AI interaction in construction education. A five-step prompting framework grounded in Generative Learning Theory (GLT) is introduced to guide learner interaction during review activities. A controlled experiment compares three learning conditions: slide-based learning, unprompted AI-supported learning, and prompted AI-supported learning. Learning performance is assessed using multiple-choice and open-ended tasks, and user experience is measured using the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Performance differences are concentrated on tasks requiring explanation and reasoning. The prompted condition achieves higher open-ended scores, with an improvement of approximately 2 or 3 points on a scale of 18 (p < 0.01), while no significant differences are observed in multiple-choice performance. The unprompted condition remains comparable to slide-based learning. These findings indicate that the effectiveness of AI-supported learning depends on how interaction is structured. The proposed framework provides a basis for integrating learning science principles into generative AI systems for construction education.

Designing Conversations with the Dead: How People Engage with Generative Ghosts

We examine how people experience two choices in the design of generative ghosts, AI systems that are trained on data of the dead: representation, where an AI speaks about a deceased person in the third person, and reincarnation, where the AI speaks as the deceased in the first person. Through a qualitative user study with 16 participants, we explore how each shaped authenticity, affect, and risk. Reincarnation was preferred for its immediacy, but participants shared fears of over-reliance. Representation was preferred for engaging with memory over conversational presence, though participants often ignored this distinction, engaging in dialogue despite third-person framing. Across both modes, participants privileged affective resonance over factual fidelity. We conclude by showing how factors such as tone, language, and conversational rhythm -- factors unique to the user's memory of the deceased -- shape interactions with generative ghosts, and argue that those interactions are always collaborative.

CoAX: Cognitive-Oriented Attribution eXplanation User Model of Human Understanding of AI Explanations

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.