Generative AI applications present unique design challenges. As generative AI technologies are increasingly being incorporated into mainstream applications, there is an urgent need for guidance on how to design user experiences that foster effective and safe use. We present six principles for the design of generative AI applications that address unique characteristics of generative AI UX and offer new interpretations and extensions of known issues in the design of AI applications. Each principle is coupled with a set of design strategies for implementing that principle via UX capabilities or through the design process. The principles and strategies were developed through an iterative process involving literature review, feedback from design practitioners, validation against real-world generative AI applications, and incorporation into the design process of two generative AI applications. We anticipate the principles to usefully inform the design of generative AI applications by driving actionable design recommendations.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to advance rapidly, it becomes increasingly important to consider AI's ethical and societal implications. In this paper, we present a bottom-up mapping of the current state of research at the intersection of Human-Centered AI, Ethical, and Responsible AI (HCER-AI) by thematically reviewing and analyzing 164 research papers from leading conferences in ethical, social, and human factors of AI: AIES, CHI, CSCW, and FAccT. The ongoing research in HCER-AI places emphasis on governance, fairness, and explainability. These conferences, however, concentrate on specific themes rather than encompassing all aspects. While AIES has fewer papers on HCER-AI, it emphasizes governance and rarely publishes papers about privacy, security, and human flourishing. FAccT publishes more on governance and lacks papers on privacy, security, and human flourishing. CHI and CSCW, as more established conferences, have a broader research portfolio. We find that the current emphasis on governance and fairness in AI research may not adequately address the potential unforeseen and unknown implications of AI. Therefore, we recommend that future research should expand its scope and diversify resources to prepare for these potential consequences. This could involve exploring additional areas such as privacy, security, human flourishing, and explainability.

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas.

Generative AI technologies are growing in power, utility, and use. As generative technologies are being incorporated into mainstream applications, there is a need for guidance on how to design those applications to foster productive and safe use. Based on recent research on human-AI co-creation within the HCI and AI communities, we present a set of seven principles for the design of generative AI applications. These principles are grounded in an environment of generative variability. Six principles are focused on designing for characteristics of generative AI: multiple outcomes & imperfection; exploration & control; and mental models & explanations. In addition, we urge designers to design against potential harms that may be caused by a generative model's hazardous output, misuse, or potential for human displacement. We anticipate these principles to usefully inform design decisions made in the creation of novel human-AI applications, and we invite the community to apply, revise, and extend these principles to their own work.

One particularly interesting aspect of these models is that their behavior can be configured by a prompt, the initial text provided to the model, which establishes a pattern that the model attempts to continue. General purpose Large Language models can be fine-tuned on specific corpora to provide expertise in a particular domain. One such model is the OpenAI Codex model [3], a 12 billion parameter version of GPT-3 [2, 11], fine-tuned on code samples from 54 million public software repositories on GitHub. This model powers Github Co-Pilot [5], which primarily provides code-completion services within an Integrated Development Environment. We wondered whether such a model could power a conversational programming assistant and perhaps approach the vision laid out by Rich and Waters for their Programmer's Apprentice [15]. We developed the Programmer's Assistant prototype to explore this possibility, and to test whether potential users would find this sort of system useful and desirable [16]. In this paper we will review the steps taken to engineer the prompt for the Programmer's Assistant that used the Codex model to power an interactive conversational assistant, and how we evolved the prompt to establish the desired persona and behavior.

What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users' explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users' explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.

Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions and hold systems accountable. While "opening the opaque box" is important, understanding who opens the box can govern if the Human-AI interaction is effective. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups of whos--people with and without a background in AI--perceive different types of AI explanations. These groups were chosen to look at how disparities in AI backgrounds can exacerbate the creator-consumer gap. We quantitatively share what the perceptions are along five dimensions: confidence, intelligence, understandability, second chance, and friendliness. Qualitatively, we highlight how the AI background influences each group's interpretations and elucidate why the differences might exist through the lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups had unwarranted faith in numbers, to different extents and for different reasons, (2) each group found explanatory values in different explanations that went beyond the usage we designed them for, and (3) each group had different requirements of what counts as humanlike explanations. Using our findings, we discuss potential negative consequences such as harmful manipulation of user trust and propose design interventions to mitigate them. By bringing conscious awareness to how and why AI backgrounds shape perceptions of potential creators and consumers in XAI, our work takes a formative step in advancing a pluralistic Human-centered Explainable AI discourse.

The development of AI applications is a multidisciplinary effort, involving multiple roles collaborating with the AI developers, an umbrella term we use to include data scientists and other AI-adjacent roles on the same team. During these collaborations, there is a knowledge mismatch between AI developers, who are skilled in data science, and external stakeholders who are typically not. This difference leads to communication gaps, and the onus falls on AI developers to explain data science concepts to their collaborators. In this paper, we report on a study including analyses of both interviews with AI developers and artifacts they produced for communication. Using the analytic lens of shared mental models, we report on the types of communication gaps that AI developers face, how AI developers communicate across disciplinary and organizational boundaries, and how they simultaneously manage issues regarding trust and expectations.

As AI-powered systems increasingly mediate consequential decision-making, their explainability is critical for end-users to take informed and accountable actions. Explanations in human-human interactions are socially-situated. AI systems are often socio-organizationally embedded. However, Explainable AI (XAI) approaches have been predominantly algorithm-centered. We take a developmental step towards socially-situated XAI by introducing and exploring Social Transparency (ST), a sociotechnically informed perspective that incorporates the socio-organizational context into explaining AI-mediated decision-making. To explore ST conceptually, we conducted interviews with 29 AI users and practitioners grounded in a speculative design scenario. We suggested constitutive design elements of ST and developed a conceptual framework to unpack ST's effect and implications at the technical, decision-making, and organizational level. The framework showcases how ST can potentially calibrate trust in AI, improve decision-making, facilitate organizational collective actions, and cultivate holistic explainability. Our work contributes to the discourse of Human-Centered XAI by expanding the design space of XAI.

In recent years there has been an increasing trend in which data scientists and domain experts work together to tackle complex scientific questions. However, such collaborations often face challenges. In this paper, we aim to decipher this collaboration complexity through a semi-structured interview study with 22 interviewees from teams of bio-medical scientists collaborating with data scientists. In the analysis, we adopt the Olsons' four-dimensions framework proposed in Distance Matters to code interview transcripts. Our findings suggest that besides the glitches in the collaboration readiness, technology readiness, and coupling of work dimensions, the tensions that exist in the common ground building process influence the collaboration outcomes, and then persist in the actual collaboration process. In contrast to prior works' general account of building a high level of common ground, the breakdowns of content common ground together with the strengthen of process common ground in this process is more beneficial for scientific discovery. We discuss why that is and what the design suggestions are, and conclude the paper with future directions and limitations.