Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.
This position paper argues that human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) should incorporate insights from the psychology of information seeking. Drawing on Sharot and Sunstein's framework of information-seeking motives, we propose that people evaluate whether to engage with explanations based on three types of expected utility: instrumental (will it help me act better?), hedonic (will it make me feel better?), and cognitive (will it improve my understanding?). Each utility is estimated through a lens shaped by well-documented cognitive biases, including illusion of control, automation bias, unrealistic optimism, impact bias, overconfidence, and confirmation bias. These biases can lead to two failure modes: excessive information-seeking that fragments attention without improving decisions, and insufficient information-seeking that leaves critical risks and misunderstandings unexamined. This challenge is particularly acute for agentic AI systems, where explanations must support not just understanding a single output but anticipating cascading actions, assessing risks, and deciding when to intervene. By integrating information-seeking psychology into HCXAI, we advocate for a shift from making explanations available to making them sought: designing systems that account for when and why users actually want to know.
This paper proposes a human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) framework for AI-assisted lexicography. While generative AI offers significant opportunities to enhance lexicographic work, it also raises concerns regarding the future role of lexicographers and the preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity. Drawing on HCAI principles and previous applications in other language professions, the paper identifies four interrelated dimensions through which AI integration in lexicography can be understood and critically examined: the augmented lexicographer, the sociotechnical context of AI integration, bias, and the design of AI-powered lexicographic tools. The framework argues that AI should augment rather than replace lexicographers, combining high levels of automation with meaningful human control. It further emphasizes the importance of preserving professional agency, mitigating AI-generated biases, and designing tools around the needs of lexicographers. By doing so, the paper provides a foundation for future research and the beneficial integration of AI into lexicographic workflows.
Human-centered AI (HCAI) refers to guidelines or principles that aim on ethi-cally oriented design of systems. We compare HCAI- guidelines with princi-ples of socio-technical systems that emerged in the context of conventional in-formation technology. The comparison leads to a revision of socio-technical heuristics by including aspects of AI-usage. The comparison reveals that con-tinuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems, and that human oversight or interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI-systems lead to continuous adaptation and re-design of the systems, if autono-my is collaboratively exercised. From a socio-technical point of view, the cru-cial requirement of transparency has not only to be fulfilled with technical fea-tures, but also by contributions of the whole system including human actors. It will be promising for using AI, if not only technical features, but organization-al and social practices are socio-technically designed in a way that compen-sates shortcomings of AI.
Seren Yenikent, Jack Vinijtrongjit, Katherine Ngcs.AI cs.CY cs.HC
Mental health disorders affect nearly one billion people globally, yet 75% of individuals in low- and middle-income countries receive no treatment due to workforce shortages, cost barriers, and stigma. Current AI-powered wellness solutions predominantly rely on single-mode conversational interfaces that suffer high abandonment rates and fail to provide measurable, immediate relief calibrated to users' dynamic emotional states. This paper presents Copewell, a novel multi-agent swarm system designed to expand access to mental wellness support through human-centered AI principles. Our architecture introduces three technical innovations: (1) a multi-source assessment framework integrating self-reported, physiological, and contextual data to mitigate algorithmic bias; (2) valence-arousal emotion mapping using Russell's Circumplex Model of Affect to route users to specialized AI agents; and (3) dual-mode intervention delivery combining conversational support with evidence-based sensory wellness protocols. We examine the sociotechnical design considerations underlying Copewell's development, including a privacy-first architecture, embedded ethical oversight through a dedicated Ethics Supervisor agent, and participatory design informed by mental health practitioners. Early practitioner engagement and beta deployment inform design decisions and identify directions for future empirical evaluation. This work contributes to responsible AI discourse by demonstrating how technical architecture can operationalize equity and safety principles from inception.
This paper examines the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design. The aim is to identify and highlight potential common structures, synergies, and challenges. How should and can technical systems be designed, and what implications does this have for the design of our environment? In light of the current debate surrounding artificial intelligence, this paper aims to serve as a preliminary study to help better understand the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design within the context of human-centered technological development. Following a brief introduction, the two concepts of Digital Humanism and Evolutionary Design are presented and graphically visualized. The terms of freedom and responsibility in human decision-making, conviviality, and subjectivity are discussed, along with examples illustrating the distinction between human and artificial intelligence (Turing Test and Chinese Room). The various concepts of evolutionary design (e.g., co-evolutionary or sustainable software development, clean code, or green IT) and Gilbert Simondon's concept of the "open machine" are introduced. The interdependencies between functional specialization and open technology development are highlighted. Both concepts share similar structures. In joint cooperation, they can lead to positive effects and mutual synergies. Significant differences lie in the areas of autonomy and determination in decision-making, as well as in genuine and simulated subjectivity. Open technology development is also currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach. Even optimizations for energy efficiency in sustainable software development lead to greater specialization and thus also have a detrimental effect on open and quality-oriented technology development.
Collecting reliable social data from low-literacy populations remains a persistent challenge, particularly when surveys involve sensitive topics and marginalized communities. Traditional paper-based and web-based survey modalities often suffer from high attrition and incomplete responses due to literacy barriers, social pressure, and interactional discomfort. In this paper, we present findings from an initial field evaluation comparing multiple survey modalities paper-based interviews, digital web-based surveys, conversational AI (convAI) surveys, and convAI enhanced with layered value-sensitive design conducted with low-literacy women across India. Using data from 315 participants, we show that convAI significantly improves survey completion rates relative to traditional modalities, with the highest completion and lowest drop-off observed when value-sensitive and culturally aligned conversational design elements are fully integrated. These results demonstrate the importance of human-centered and value-sensitive interaction design in enabling inclusive, ethical, and scalable data collection; motivating more `AI for social good' applications.
Agentic AI marks a new phase of enterprise automation. Unlike traditional automation or conversational AI, agentic systems can interpret goals, plan multi step tasks, access tools, interact with enterprise systems, and execute workflows with varying degrees of autonomy. For small and medium sized companies, this creates potential to reduce administrative burden, accelerate routine processes, and improve the use of organizational knowledge. This paper argues that the near term value of Agentic AI does not lie in full autonomy or workforce reduction, but in controlled partial autonomy for simple and medium complexity business processes. It proposes an integration framework covering use case suitability, autonomy levels, technical integration, governance, security, employee enablement, and measurable impact. The paper concludes that Agentic AI can become a productivity lever when implemented as a human centered capability with responsibility and accountability retained by people.
Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes culturally aware, human-centered AIED through participatory elicitation of cultural knowledge, bilingual representation, and stakeholder validation across education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally aware AIED designed to support multi-stakeholder collaboration and widen participation by bridging social work and computational science.
Effective peer feedback is essential for developing critical reflection in higher education, yet its impact is often limited by the inconsistent quality of student-generated comments. This paper presents the implementation and deployment of AICoFe (AI-based Collaborative Feedback), a system designed to bridge this gap through a human-centered AI approach. We describe a modular architecture that orchestrates a multi-LLM pipeline, utilizing GPT-4.1-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Llama 3.1, to synthesize quantitative rubric data and qualitative observations into coherent, actionable feedback. Key to the system is a "teacher-in-the-loop" mediation workflow, where educators use specialized Learning Analytics dashboards to curate and refine AI-generated drafts before delivery. Furthermore, we detail the underlying data infrastructure, which employs a hybrid SQL and MongoDB strategy to ensure traceability and manage semi-structured feedback versions.