On User-Generated Content (UGC) platforms, recommendation algorithms significantly impact creators' motivation to produce content as they compete for

AI is no longer just a translator or image recognizer. Today, we engage with systems that remember our preferences, proactively manage our calendars, and even provide emotional support. They build ongoing bonds with users. They change their behavior based on our habits. They don't just wait for commands; they suggest next steps.

There are an increasing number of domains in which artificial intelligence (AI) systems bothsurpass human ability andaccurately model human behavior.

Advances in artificial intelligence are creating a perfect storm for those seeking to spread disinformation at unprecedented speed and scale. And it's virtually impossible to detect. In 2016, hundreds of Russians filed into a modern office building on 55 Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg every day; they were part of the now-infamous troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency . Day and night, seven days a week, these employees would manually comment on news articles, post on Facebook and Twitter, and generally seek to rile up Americans about the then-upcoming presidential election. When the scheme was finally uncovered, there was widespread media coverage and Senate hearings, and social media platforms made changes in the way they verified users.

In an online social network, link recommendations are a way for users to discover relevant links to people they may know, thereby potentially increasing their engagement on the platform. However, the addition of links to a social network can also have an effect on the level of conflict in the network --- expressed in terms of polarization and disagreement. To date, however, we have very little understanding of how these two implications of link formation relate to each other: are the goals of high relevance and conflict reduction aligned, or are the links that users are most likely to accept fundamentally different from the ones with the greatest potential for reducing conflict? Here we provide the first analysis of this question, using the recently popular Friedkin-Johnsen model of opinion dynamics. We first present a surprising result on how link additions shift the level of opinion conflict, followed by explanation work that relates the amount of shift to structural features of the added links. We then characterize the gap in conflict reduction between the set of links achieving the largest reduction and the set of links achieving the highest relevance. The gap is measured on real-world data, based on instantiations of relevance defined by 13 link recommendation algorithms. We find that some, but not all, of the more accurate algorithms actually lead to better reduction of conflict. Our work suggests that social links recommended for increasing user engagement may not be as conflict-provoking as people might have thought.

Studying how recommendation systems reshape social networks is difficult on live platforms: confounds abound, and controlled experiments risk user harm. We present an agent-based simulator where content production, tie formation, and a graph attention network (GAT) recommender co-evolve in a closed loop. We calibrate parameters using Mastodon data and validate out-of-sample against Bluesky (4--6\% error on structural metrics; 10--15\% on held-out temporal splits). Across 18 configurations at 100 agents, we find that \emph{activation timing} affects outcomes: introducing recommendations at $t=10$ vs.\ $t=40$ decreases transitivity by 10\% while engagement differs by $<$8\%. Delaying activation increases content diversity by 9\% while reducing modularity by 4\%. Scaling experiments ($n$ up to 5,000) show the effect persists but attenuates. Jacobian analysis confirms local stability under bounded reactance parameters. We release configuration schemas and reproduction scripts.

Abstract--In this letter, we investigate whether classical function allocation--the principle of assigning tasks to either a human or a machine--holds for physical Human-Robot Collaboration, which is important for providing insights for Industry 5.0 to guide how to best augment rather than replace workers. This study empirically tests the applicability of Fitts' List within physical Human-Robot Collaboration, by conducting a user study (N=26, within-subject design) to evaluate four distinct allocations of position/force control between human and robot in an abstract blending task. We hypothesize that the function in which humans control the position achieves better performance and receives higher user ratings. When allocating position control to the human and force control to the robot, compared to the opposite case, we observed a significant improvement in preventing overblending. This was also perceived better in terms of physical demand and overall system acceptance, while participants experienced greater autonomy, more engagement and less frustration. An interesting insight was that the supervisory role (when the robot controls both position and force) was rated second best in terms of subjective acceptance. Another surprising insight was that if position control was delegated to the robot, the participants perceived much lower autonomy than when the force control was delegated to the robot. These findings empirically support applying Fitts' principles to static function allocation for physical collaboration, while also revealing important nuanced user experience trade-offs, particularly regarding perceived autonomy when delegating position control. Received 7 May 2025; accepted 25 October 2025.

What if users could meet their future selves today? AI-generated future selves simulate meaningful encounters with a digital twin decades in the future. As AI systems advance, combining cloned voices, age-progressed facial rendering, and autobiographical narratives, a central question emerges: Does the modality of these future selves alter their psychological and affective impact? How might a text-based chatbot, a voice-only system, or a photorealistic avatar shape present-day decisions and our feeling of connection to the future? We report a randomized controlled study (N=92) evaluating three modalities of AI-generated future selves (text, voice, avatar) against a neutral control condition. We also report a systematic model evaluation between Claude 4 and three other Large Language Models (LLMs), assessing Claude 4 across psychological and interaction dimensions and establishing conversational AI quality as a critical determinant of intervention effectiveness. All personalized modalities strengthened Future Self-Continuity (FSC), emotional well-being, and motivation compared to control, with avatar producing the largest vividness gains, yet with no significant differences between formats. Interaction quality metrics, particularly persuasiveness, realism, and user engagement, emerged as robust predictors of psychological and affective outcomes, indicating that how compelling the interaction feels matters more than the form it takes. Content analysis found thematic patterns: text emphasized career planning, while voice and avatar facilitated personal reflection. Claude 4 outperformed ChatGPT 3.5, Llama 4, and Qwen 3 in enhancing psychological, affective, and FSC outcomes.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful technology, and thus, we have seen widespread adoption and use on software engineering teams. Most often, LLMs are designed as "general purpose" technologies meant to represent the general population. Unfortunately, this often means alignment with predominantly Western Caucasian narratives and misalignment with other cultures and populations that engage in collaborative innovation. In response to this misalignment, there have been recent efforts centered on the development of "culturally-informed" LLMs, such as ChatBlackGPT, that are capable of better aligning with historically marginalized experiences and perspectives. Despite this progress, there has been little effort aimed at supporting our ability to develop and evaluate culturally-informed LLMs. A recent effort proposed an approach for developing a national alignment benchmark that emphasizes alignment with national social values and common knowledge. However, given the range of cultural identities present in the United States (U.S.), a national alignment benchmark is an ineffective goal for broader representation. To help fill this gap in this US context, we propose a replication study that translates the process used to develop KorNAT, a Korean National LLM alignment benchmark, to develop CIVIQ, a Cultural Intelligence and Values Inference Quality benchmark centered on alignment with community social values and common knowledge. Our work provides a critical foundation for research and development aimed at cultural alignment of AI technologies in practice.