We introduce HealthDial, a dialogue authoring tool that helps healthcare providers and educators create virtual agents that deliver health education and counseling to patients over multiple conversations. HealthDial leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically create an initial session-based plan and conversations for each session using text-based patient health education materials as input. Authored dialogue is output in the form of finite state machines for virtual agent delivery so that all content can be validated and no unsafe advice is provided resulting from LLM hallucinations. LLM-drafted dialogue structure and language can be edited by the author in a no-code user interface to ensure validity and optimize clarity and impact. We conducted a feasibility and usability study with counselors and students to test our approach with an authoring task for cancer screening education. Participants used HealthDial and then tested their resulting dialogue by interacting with a 3D-animated virtual agent delivering the dialogue. Through participants' evaluations of the task experience and final dialogues, we show that HealthDial provides a promising first step for counselors to ensure full coverage of their health education materials, while creating understandable and actionable virtual agent dialogue with patients.

No one doubts that our future will feature more automation than our past or present. The question is how we get from here to there, and how we do so in a way that is good for humanity. Sometimes it seems the most direct route is to automate wherever possible, and to keep iterating until we get it right. Here's why that would be a mistake: imperfect automation is not a first step toward perfect automation, anymore than jumping halfway across a canyon is a first step toward jumping the full distance. Recognizing that the rim is out of reach, we may find better alternatives to leaping--for example, building a bridge, hiking the trail, or driving around the perimeter. This is exactly where we are with artificial intelligence. AI is not yet ready to jump the canyon, and it probably won't be in a meaningful sense for most of the next decade. Rather than asking AI to hurl itself over the abyss while hoping for the best, we should instead use AI's extraordinary and improving capabilities to build bridges.

In the context of AI-based decision support systems, explanations can help users to judge when to trust the AI's suggestion, and when to question it. In this way, human oversight can prevent AI errors and biased decision-making. However, this rests on the assumption that users will consider explanations in enough detail to be able to catch such errors. We conducted an online study on trust in explainable DSS, and were surprised to find that in many cases, participants spent little time on the explanation and did not always consider it in detail. We present an exploratory analysis of this data, investigating what factors impact how carefully study participants consider AI explanations, and how this in turn impacts whether they are open to changing their mind based on what the AI suggests.

As AI tools increasingly shape how we write, they may also quietly reshape how we perceive ourselves. This paper explores the psychological impact of co-writing with AI on people's locus of control. Through an empirical study with 462 participants, we found that employment status plays a critical role in shaping users' reliance on AI and their locus of control. Current results demonstrated that employed participants displayed higher reliance on AI and a shift toward internal control, while unemployed users tended to experience a reduction in personal agency. Through quantitative results and qualitative observations, this study opens a broader conversation about AI's role in shaping personal agency and identity.

Creative coding platforms like Scratch have democratized programming for children, yet translating imaginative ideas into functional code remains a significant hurdle for many young learners. While AI copilots assist adult programmers, few tools target children in block-based environments. Building on prior research \cite{druga_how_2021,druga2023ai, druga2023scratch}, we present Cognimates Scratch Copilot: an AI-powered assistant integrated into a Scratch-like environment, providing real-time support for ideation, code generation, debugging, and asset creation. This paper details the system architecture and findings from an exploratory qualitative evaluation with 18 international children (ages 7--12). Our analysis reveals how the AI Copilot supported key creative coding processes, particularly aiding ideation and debugging. Crucially, it also highlights how children actively negotiated the use of AI, demonstrating strong agency by adapting or rejecting suggestions to maintain creative control. Interactions surfaced design tensions between providing helpful scaffolding and fostering independent problem-solving, as well as learning opportunities arising from navigating AI limitations and errors. Findings indicate Cognimates Scratch Copilot's potential to enhance creative self-efficacy and engagement. Based on these insights, we propose initial design guidelines for AI coding assistants that prioritize youth agency and critical interaction alongside supportive scaffolding.

People inherently use experiences of their past while imagining their future, a capability that plays a crucial role in mental health. Resonance is an AI-powered journaling tool designed to augment this ability by offering AI-generated, action-oriented suggestions for future activities based on the user's own past memories. Suggestions are offered when a new memory is logged and are followed by a prompt for the user to imagine carrying out the suggestion. In a two-week randomized controlled study (N=55), we found that using Resonance significantly improved mental health outcomes, reducing the users' PHQ8 scores, a measure of current depression, and increasing their daily positive affect, particularly when they would likely act on the suggestion. Notably, the effectiveness of the suggestions was higher when they were personal, novel, and referenced the user's logged memories. Finally, through open-ended feedback, we discuss the factors that encouraged or hindered the use of the tool.

Writing about a subject enriches writers' understanding of that subject. This cognitive benefit of writing -- known as constructive learning -- is essential to how students learn in various disciplines. However, does this benefit persist when students write with generative AI writing assistants? Prior research suggests the answer varies based on the type of AI, e.g., auto-complete systems tend to hinder ideation, while assistants that pose Socratic questions facilitate it. This paper adds an additional perspective. Through a case study, we demonstrate that the impact of genAI on students' idea development depends not only on the AI but also on the students and, crucially, their interactions in between. Students who proactively explored ideas gained new ideas from writing, regardless of whether they used auto-complete or Socratic AI assistants. Those who engaged in prolonged, mindless copyediting developed few ideas even with a Socratic AI. These findings suggest opportunities in designing AI writing assistants, not merely by creating more thought-provoking AI, but also by fostering more thought-provoking writer-AI interactions.

Given the rising proliferation and diversity of AI writing assistance tools, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), both writers and readers may have concerns about the impact of these tools on the authenticity of writing work. We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools and whether personalization of AI writing support could help achieve this goal. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, during which they co-wrote with both personalized and non-personalized AI writing-support tools. We supplemented writers' perspectives with opinions from 30 avid readers about the written work co-produced with AI collected through an online survey. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation, which focus more on the process and experience of constructing creators' authentic selves. While writers reacted positively to personalized AI writing tools, they believed the form of personalization needs to target writers' growth and go beyond the phase of text production. Overall, readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing. Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work and showed positive attitudes toward writers experimenting with new technology for creative writing.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into everyday products and services, such as coding tools and writing assistants. As these embedded AI applications are deployed globally, there is a growing concern that the AI models underlying these applications prioritize Western values. This paper investigates what happens when a Western-centric AI model provides writing suggestions to users from a different cultural background. We conducted a cross-cultural controlled experiment with 118 participants from India and the United States who completed culturally grounded writing tasks with and without AI suggestions. Our analysis reveals that AI provided greater efficiency gains for Americans compared to Indians. Moreover, AI suggestions led Indian participants to adopt Western writing styles, altering not just what is written but also how it is written. These findings show that Western-centric AI models homogenize writing toward Western norms, diminishing nuances that differentiate cultural expression.

Artificial intelligence-powered writing assistants that autocomplete sentences or offer "smart replies" not only put words into people's mouths, they also put ideas into their heads, according to new research. Maurice Jakesch, a doctoral student in the field of information science asked more than 1,500 participants to write a paragraph answering the question, "Is social media good for society?" People who used an AI writing assistant that was biased for or against social media were twice as likely to write a paragraph agreeing with the assistant, and significantly more likely to say they held the same opinion, compared with people who wrote without AI's help. The study suggests that the biases baked into AI writing tools – whether intentional or unintentional – could have concerning repercussions for culture and politics, researchers said. "We're rushing to implement these AI models in all walks of life, but we need to better understand the implications," said co-author Mor Naaman, professor at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech and of information science in the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science.