Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in software engineering tasks such as requirements elicitation, design, and evaluation, raising critical questions regarding their alignment with human judgments on responsible AI values. This study investigates how closely LLMs' value preferences align with those of two human groups: a US-representative sample and AI practitioners. We evaluate 23 LLMs across four tasks: (T1) selecting key responsible AI values, (T2) rating their importance in specific contexts, (T3) resolving trade-offs between competing values, and (T4) prioritizing software requirements that embody those values. The results show that LLMs generally align more closely with AI practitioners than with the US-representative sample, emphasizing fairness, privacy, transparency, safety, and accountability. However, inconsistencies appear between the values that LLMs claim to uphold (Tasks 1-3) and the way they prioritize requirements (Task 4), revealing gaps in faithfulness between stated and applied behavior. These findings highlight the practical risk of relying on LLMs in requirements engineering without human oversight and motivate the need for systematic approaches to benchmark, interpret, and monitor value alignment in AI-assisted software development.

The rapid emergence of generative AI has changed the way that technology is designed, constructed, maintained, and evaluated. Decisions made when creating AI-powered systems may impact some users disproportionately, such as people with disabilities. In this paper, we report on an interview study with 25 AI practitioners across multiple roles (engineering, research, UX, and responsible AI) about how their work processes and artifacts may impact end users with disabilities. We found that practitioners experienced friction when triaging problems at the intersection of responsible AI and accessibility practices, navigated contradictions between accessibility and responsible AI guidelines, identified gaps in data about users with disabilities, and gathered support for addressing the needs of disabled stakeholders by leveraging informal volunteer and community groups within their company. Based on these findings, we offer suggestions for new resources and process changes to better support people with disabilities as end users of AI.

Responsible AI (RAI) efforts increasingly emphasize the importance of addressing potential harms early in the AI development lifecycle through social-technical lenses. However, in cross-functional industry teams, this work is often stalled by a persistent knowledge handoff challenge: the difficulty of transferring high-level, early-stage technical design rationales from technical experts to non-technical or user-facing roles for ethical evaluation and harm identification. Through literature review and a co-design study with 8 practitioners, we unpack how this challenge manifests -- technical design choices are rarely handed off in ways that support meaningful engagement by non-technical roles; collaborative workflows lack shared, visual structures to support mutual understanding; and non-technical practitioners are left without scaffolds for systematic harm evaluation. Existing tools like JIRA or Google Docs, while useful for product tracking, are ill-suited for supporting joint harm identification across roles, often requiring significant extra effort to align understanding. To address this, we developed AI LEGO, a web-based prototype that supports cross-functional AI practitioners in effectively facilitating knowledge handoff and identifying harmful design choices in the early design stages. Technical roles use interactive blocks to draft development plans, while non-technical roles engage with those blocks through stage-specific checklists and LLM-driven persona simulations to surface potential harms. In a study with 18 cross-functional practitioners, AI LEGO increased the volume and likelihood of harms identified compared to baseline worksheets. Participants found that its modular structure and persona prompts made harm identification more accessible, fostering clearer and more collaborative RAI practices in early design.

Recent research illustrates how AI can be developed and deployed in a manner detached from the concrete social context of application. By abstracting from the contexts of AI application, practitioners also disengage from the distinct normative structures that govern them. Building upon Helen Nissenbaum's framework of contextual integrity, I illustrate how disregard for contextual norms can threaten the integrity of a context with often decisive ethical implications. I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms. Echoing a persistent undercurrent in technology ethics of understanding emerging technologies as uncharted moral territory, certain approaches to AI ethics can promote a notion of AI as a novel and distinct realm for ethical deliberation, norm setting, and virtue cultivation. This narrative of AI as new ethical ground, however, can come at the expense of practitioners, policymakers and ethicists engaging with already established norms and virtues that were gradually cultivated to promote successful and responsible practice within concrete social contexts. In response, I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation. Engaging also with emerging foundation models, I advocate for a moderately conservative approach to the ethics of AI that prioritizes the responsible and considered integration of AI within established social contexts and their respective normative structures.

In the evolving landscape of AI regulation, it is crucial for companies to conduct impact assessments and document their compliance through comprehensive reports. However, current reports lack grounding in regulations and often focus on specific aspects like privacy in relation to AI systems, without addressing the real-world uses of these systems. Moreover, there is no systematic effort to design and evaluate these reports with both AI practitioners and AI compliance experts. To address this gap, we conducted an iterative co-design process with 14 AI practitioners and 6 AI compliance experts and proposed a template for impact assessment reports grounded in the EU AI Act, NIST's AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO 42001 AI Management System. We evaluated the template by producing an impact assessment report for an AI-based meeting companion at a major tech company. A user study with 8 AI practitioners from the same company and 5 AI compliance experts from industry and academia revealed that our template effectively provides necessary information for impact assessments and documents the broad impacts of AI systems. Participants envisioned using the template not only at the pre-deployment stage for compliance but also as a tool to guide the design stage of AI uses.

The rise in the use of AI/ML applications across industries has sparked more discussions about the fairness of AI/ML in recent times. While prior research on the fairness of AI/ML exists, there is a lack of empirical studies focused on understanding the views and experiences of AI practitioners in developing a fair AI/ML. Understanding AI practitioners' views and experiences on the fairness of AI/ML is important because they are directly involved in its development and deployment and their insights can offer valuable real-world perspectives on the challenges associated with ensuring fairness in AI/ML. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 AI practitioners to investigate their understanding of what a 'fair AI/ML' is, the challenges they face in developing a fair AI/ML, the consequences of developing an unfair AI/ML, and the strategies they employ to ensure AI/ML fairness. We developed a framework showcasing the relationship between AI practitioners' understanding of 'fair AI/ML' and (i) their challenges in its development, (ii) the consequences of developing an unfair AI/ML, and (iii) strategies used to ensure AI/ML fairness. Additionally, we also identify areas for further investigation and offer recommendations to aid AI practitioners and AI companies in navigating fairness.

Ethics in AI has become a debated topic of public and expert discourse in recent years. But what do people who build AI - AI practitioners - have to say about their understanding of AI ethics and the challenges associated with incorporating it in the AI-based systems they develop? Understanding AI practitioners' views on AI ethics is important as they are the ones closest to the AI systems and can bring about changes and improvements. We conducted a survey aimed at understanding AI practitioners' awareness of AI ethics and their challenges in incorporating ethics. Based on 100 AI practitioners' responses, our findings indicate that majority of AI practitioners had a reasonable familiarity with the concept of AI ethics, primarily due to workplace rules and policies. Privacy protection and security was the ethical principle that majority of them were aware of. Formal education/training was considered somewhat helpful in preparing practitioners to incorporate AI ethics. The challenges that AI practitioners faced in the development of ethical AI-based systems included (i) general challenges, (ii) technology-related challenges and (iii) human-related challenges. We also identified areas needing further investigation and provided recommendations to assist AI practitioners and companies in incorporating ethics into AI development.

AI Practitioners should be mindful when designing eligibility criteria, assuring the requirements for successful task completion are clear and only relevant to the task (e.g.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a disruptive and fast-moving field whose developmental trajectory is accelerating rapidly. In fact, the number of publications in this space has been rising dramatically in recent years. Stanford's annual Artificial Intelligence Index Report shows that the number of AI publications has increased from 162,444 in 2010 to 334,497 in 2021 [1]. If you are working in the field of AI, you have probably also noticed the shortening intervals between major industry advances such as OpenAI's DALL·E 2, GPT-3 and ChatGPT, or DeepMind's AlphaFold. Those are just some examples that captured the attention of both the general public and the tech industry as they were extensively reported on and widely circulated on social media.

Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible artificial intelligence technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups: a representative sample of the US population (N=743), a sample of crowdworkers (N=755), and a sample of AI practitioners (N=175). Our results empirically confirm a common concern: AI practitioners' value priorities differ from those of the general public. Compared to the US-representative sample, AI practitioners appear to consider responsible AI values as less important and emphasize a different set of values. In contrast, self-identified women and black respondents found responsible AI values more important than other groups. Surprisingly, more liberal-leaning participants, rather than participants reporting experiences with discrimination, were more likely to prioritize fairness than other groups. Our findings highlight the importance of paying attention to who gets to define responsible AI.