Seeking advice is a core human behavior that the Internet has reinvented twice: first through forums and Q\&A communities that crowdsource public guidance, and now through large language models (LLMs) that deliver private, on-demand counsel at scale. Yet the quality of this synthesized LLM advice remains unclear. How does it compare, not only against arbitrary human comments, but against the wisdom of the online crowd? We conducted two studies (N = 210) in which experts compared top-voted Reddit advice with LLM-generated advice. LLMs ranked significantly higher overall and on effectiveness, warmth, and willingness to seek advice again. GPT-4o beat GPT-5 on all metrics except sycophancy, suggesting that benchmark gains need not improve advice-giving. In our second study, we examined how human and algorithmic advice could be combined, and found that human advice can be unobtrusively polished to compete with AI-generated comments. Finally, to surface user expectations, we ran an exploratory survey with undergraduates (N=148) that revealed heterogeneous, persona-dependent preferences for agent qualities (e.g., coach-like: goal-focused structure; friend-like: warmth and humor). We conclude with design implications for advice-giving agents and ecosystems blending AI, crowd input, and expert oversight.

Over the Eight decades, computing paradigms have shifted from large, centralized systems to compact, distributed architectures, leading to the rise of the Distributed Computing Continuum (DCC). In this model, multiple layers such as cloud, edge, Internet of Things (IoT), and mobile platforms work together to support a wide range of applications. Recently, the emergence of Generative AI and large language models has further intensified the demand for computational resources across this continuum. Although traditional performance metrics have provided a solid foundation, they need to be revisited and expanded to keep pace with changing computational demands and application requirements. Accurate performance measurements benefit both system designers and users by supporting improvements in efficiency and promoting alignment with system goals. In this context, we review commonly used metrics in DCC and IoT environments. We also discuss emerging performance dimensions that address evolving computing needs, such as sustainability, energy efficiency, and system observability. We also outline criteria and considerations for selecting appropriate metrics, aiming to inspire future research and development in this critical area.

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform education, most existing AI evaluations rely primarily on technical performance metrics such as accuracy or task efficiency while overlooking human identity, learner agency, contextual learning processes, and ethical considerations. In this paper, we present TEACH-AI (Trustworthy and Effective AI Classroom Heuristics), a domain-independent, pedagogically grounded, and stakeholder-aligned framework with measurable indicators and a practical toolkit for guiding the design, development, and evaluation of generative AI systems in educational contexts. Built on an extensive literature review and synthesis, the ten-component assessment framework and toolkit checklist provide a foundation for scalable, value-aligned AI evaluation in education. TEACH-AI rethinks "evaluation" through sociotechnical, educational, theoretical, and applied lenses, engaging designers, developers, researchers, and policymakers across AI and education. Our work invites the community to reconsider what constructs "effective" AI in education and to design model evaluation approaches that promote co-creation, inclusivity, and long-term human, social, and educational impact.

Generative models, such as large language models and text-to-image diffusion models, are increasingly used to create visual designs like user interfaces (UIs) and presentation slides. Finetuning and benchmarking these generative models have often relied on datasets of human-annotated design preferences. Yet, due to the subjective and highly personalized nature of visual design, preference varies widely among individuals. In this paper, we study this problem by introducing DesignPref, a dataset of 12k pairwise comparisons of UI design generation annotated by 20 professional designers with multi-level preference ratings. We found that among trained designers, substantial levels of disagreement exist (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.25 for binary preferences). Natural language rationales provided by these designers indicate that disagreements stem from differing perceptions of various design aspect importance and individual preferences. With DesignPref, we demonstrate that traditional majority-voting methods for training aggregated judge models often do not accurately reflect individual preferences. To address this challenge, we investigate multiple personalization strategies, particularly fine-tuning or incorporating designer-specific annotations into RAG pipelines. Our results show that personalized models consistently outperform aggregated baseline models in predicting individual designers' preferences, even when using 20 times fewer examples. Our work provides the first dataset to study personalized visual design evaluation and support future research into modeling individual design taste.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasingly applied to creative domains, leading to the development of systems that collaborate with humans in design processes. In Graphic Design, integrating computational systems into co-creative workflows presents specific challenges, as it requires balancing scientific rigour with the subjective and visual nature of design practice. Following the PRISMA methodology, we identified 872 articles, resulting in a final corpus of 71 publications describing 68 unique systems. Based on this review, we introduce GRAPHIC (Guidelines for Reviewing Algorithmic Practices in Human-centred Design and Interaction for Creativity), a framework for analysing computational systems applied to Graphic Design. Its goal is to understand how current systems support human-AI collaboration in the Graphic Design discipline. The framework comprises main dimensions, which our analysis revealed to be essential across diverse system types: (1) Collaborative Panorama, (2) Processes and Modalities, and (3) Graphic Design Principles. Its application revealed research gaps, including the need to balance initiative and control between agents, improve communication through explainable interaction models, and promote systems that support transformational creativity grounded in core design principles.

Animation pre-production lays the foundation of an animated film by transforming initial concepts into a coherent blueprint across interdependent stages such as ideation, scripting, design, and storyboarding. While generative AI tools are increasingly adopted in this process, they remain isolated, requiring creators to juggle multiple systems without integrated workflow support. Our formative study with 12 professional creative directors and independent animators revealed key challenges in their current practice: Creators must manually coordinate fragmented outputs, manage large volumes of information, and struggle to maintain continuity and creative control between stages. Based on the insights, we present AnimAgents, a human-multi-agent collaborative system that coordinates complex, multi-stage workflows through a core agent and specialized agents, supported by dedicated boards for the four major stages of pre-production. AnimAgents enables stage-aware orchestration, stage-specific output management, and element-level refinement, providing an end-to-end workflow tailored to professional practice. In a within-subjects summative study with 16 professional creators, AnimAgents significantly outperformed a strong single-agent baseline that equipped with advanced parallel image generation in coordination, consistency, information management, and overall satisfaction (p < .01). A field deployment with 4 creators further demonstrated AnimAgents' effectiveness in real-world projects.

The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) creates complex bidirectional expectations between users and AI systems that are poorly understood. We introduce the concept of "mutual wanting" to analyze these expectations during major model transitions. Through analysis of user comments from major AI forums and controlled experiments across multiple OpenAI models, we provide the first large-scale empirical validation of bidirectional desire dynamics in human-AI interaction. Our findings reveal that nearly half of users employ anthropomorphic language, trust significantly exceeds betrayal language, and users cluster into distinct "mutual wanting" types. We identify measurable expectation violation patterns and quantify the expectation-reality gap following major model releases. Using advanced NLP techniques including dual-algorithm topic modeling and multi-dimensional feature extraction, we develop the Mutual Wanting Alignment Framework (M-WAF) with practical applications for proactive user experience management and AI system design. These findings establish mutual wanting as a measurable phenomenon with clear implications for building more trustworthy and relationally-aware AI systems.

Repetitive strain injury (RSI) affects roughly one in five computer users and remains largely unresolved despite decades of ergonomic mouse redesign. All such devices share a fundamental limitation: they still require fine-motor motion to operate. This work investigates whether predictive, AI-assisted input can reduce that motion by replacing physical pointing with ranked on-screen suggestions. To preserve user agency, we introduce Preview Accept Discard (PAD), a zero-click interaction paradigm that lets users preview predicted GUI targets, cycle through a small set of ranked alternatives, and accept or discard them via key-release timing. We evaluate PAD in two settings: a browser-based email client and a ISO 9241-9 keyboard-prediction task under varying top-3 accuracies. Across both studies, PAD substantially reduces hand motion relative to trackpad use while maintaining comparable task times with the trackpad only when accuracies are similar to those of the best spell-checkers.

We conducted three 90 - minute workshops at Talenthub Op Zuid, each with a different group of participants (total N=24, MAge =17.6, SD=1.2, see S upplement for additional details). In the first workshop, participants reviewed the prior 13 personas from Stage 1 and critiqued them for gaps in relevance. The scoping personas generated from survey and forum data gave youth stakeholders a concrete starting point for consulting as experts by experience in initial co - design activities. They challenged the realism of the scoping personas . Using fill - in - the - blank templates to guide but not restrict their persona creation (created by a youth member of the research team with design training, see Supplement), youth added contextual details to the project personas, such as daily routines, stressors, and digital habits, and brainstormed plausible backstories involving bullying, school difficulties, or parental conflict. The second workshop engaged a new participant group who expanded on previous outputs and addressed additional questions on living environment and emotional support needs, as this was suggested as relevant by youth from the prior workshop . Participants revised or created new personas b ased on their own or peers' experiences. In t he third workshop, a new group of participants again reviewed prior co - creation and outputs and further refined the personas .