Zachary Nicholas Houghton, Vsevolod Kapatsinskics.CL
Whether idiosyncratic, item-specific knowledge is learned before abstract class-level generalizations, or vice versa, is a central question in language learning, with exemplar and abstraction-based theories making opposite predictions. Recent methods have claimed to show that, at least for large language models, abstract knowledge is learned first. We show that these methods fall short: pure memorizer models with no abstract representations can appear, by the same criteria, to learn either item-specific or class-level knowledge first, depending on their sensitivity to individual observations, with the transition point governed by the distributional properties of the input. We further argue that the distinction between item-specific and abstract knowledge may be ill-defined for distributed representations, as a word's class-level properties may not be separable from its item-specific properties.
Nima Zargham, Sharon Ferguson, Jaisie Sin +2cs.HC cs.AI
The last few years have seen a significant rise in interest in highly autonomous and proactive systems, fueled by advances in AI. Systems that anticipate user needs, take initiative, and act without explicit user input. Such systems span a wide range of applications, from smart lighting that adapts to user activity to assistive robots that plan actions in advance to intelligent thermostats that learn routines and adjust environments proactively. Despite this breadth, the concept of proactivity remains loosely defined and inconsistently applied across research and practice. Current usage of the term often conflates fundamentally different system behaviors. For instance, simple reminders or recommendation systems are frequently labeled as proactive, even though underlying mechanisms and intentions differ significantly. This conceptual ambiguity limits our ability to systematically design, compare, and evaluate proactive systems. Moreover, existing methodologies for design and evaluation are largely rooted in reactive interaction paradigms, failing to address the unique challenges posed by proactive behavior, including timing, appropriateness, user control, transparency, and trust. This multidisciplinary workshop aims to establish a clearer and more rigorous foundation for understanding proactive systems. We bring together researchers and practitioners from Human-Computer Interaction, AI, and related fields to (1) develop a shared conceptualization of proactivity, (2) identify gaps and limitations in current design and evaluation approaches, and (3) co-create human-centered guidelines and research directions for future systems. Through interactive discussions and collaborative activities, the workshop seeks to map key challenges and opportunities, ultimately advancing robust and consistent frameworks for designing and evaluating proactive technologies.
Blade Frisch, Will Wade, Dylan Gaines +4cs.HC cs.AI
Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance what people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) are able to do with their systems. However, evaluating AI-powered AAC interfaces can be difficult. People are intersectional beings and current evaluation metrics can struggle to capture the multifaceted and nuanced desires people may have for their AAC. We explore the complicated nature of six AAC problem spaces, explore how AI might be used in these spaces, and suggest more robust methods of evaluation that take the intersectional nuances of people into account. We also discuss broader issues that arise across these problem spaces and how they could be addressed using our proposed evaluation methods.