The new GenAI platform gives U.S. troops a secure environment to learn AI tools as global rivals rapidly experiment with artificial intelligence, a military expert explained.

Generative Artificial Intelligence is reshaping online communication by enabling large-scale production of Machine-Generated Text (MGT) at low cost. While its presence is rapidly growing across the Web, little is known about how MGT integrates into social media environments. In this paper, we present the first large-scale characterization of MGT on Reddit. Using a state-of-the-art statistical method for detection of MGT, we analyze over two years of activity (2022-2024) across 51 subreddits representative of Reddit's main community types such as information seeking, social support, and discussion. We study the concentration of MGT across communities and over time, and compared MGT to human-authored text in terms of social signals it expresses and engagement it receives. Our very conservative estimate of MGT prevalence indicates that synthetic text is marginally present on Reddit, but it can reach peaks of up to 9% in some communities in some months. MGT is unevenly distributed across communities, more prevalent in subreddits focused on technical knowledge and social support, and often concentrated in the activity of a small fraction of users. MGT also conveys distinct social signals of warmth and status giving typical of language of AI assistants. Despite these stylistic differences, MGT achieves engagement levels comparable than human-authored content and in a few cases even higher, suggesting that AI-generated text is becoming an organic component of online social discourse. This work offers the first perspective on the MGT footprint on Reddit, paving the way for new investigations involving platform governance, detection strategies, and community dynamics.

Due to the limits of science and its steep learning curve, we must rely on the expertise of others to develop our knowledge and skills.26 Toward this end, social media platforms have revolutionized how netizens--users who are actively engaged in online communities--gain knowledge and skills by facilitating the exchange of costless information with the public (for example, followers or influencers). Businesses around the world also use these platforms along with tools based on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to craft synthetic media, hoping to grow revenue by attracting more customers and improving their online experience.28 Generative AI tools can empower cyber threats and have cyberpsychological effects on netizens, allowing malicious actors to craft deepfakes in the form of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Service providers not only must enhance GenAI tools to reduce hallucinations, but they also have a statutory duty to mitigate data-driven biases.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is transforming education, redefining the role of trainers and coaches in learning environments. In our study, we explore how AI integrates into the design process of learning materials, assessing its impact on efficiency, pedagogical quality, and the evolving role of human trainers and coaches. Through qualitative interviews with professionals in education and corporate training, we identify the following key topics: trainers and coaches increasingly act as facilitators and content moderators rather than primary creators, efficiency gains allow for a stronger strategic focus but at the same time the new tools require new skills. Additionally, we analyze how the anthropomorphism of AI shapes user trust and expectations. From these insights, we derive how tools based on GenAI can successfully be implemented for trainers and coaches on an individual, organizational, systemic, and strategic level.

The rapid integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into higher education presents both opportunities and challenges for assessment design, particularly within Project-Based Assessment (PBA) contexts. Traditional assessment methods often emphasise the final product in the PBA, which can now be significantly influenced or created by GenAI tools, raising concerns regarding product authenticity, academic integrity, and learning validation. This paper advocates for a reimagined assessment model for Project-Based Learning (PBL) or a capstone project that prioritises process-oriented evaluation, multi-modal and multifaceted assessment design, and ethical engagement with GenAI to enable higher-order thinking. The model also emphasises the use of (GenAI-assisted) personalised feedback by a supervisor as an observance of the learning process during the project lifecycle. A use case scenario is provided to illustrate the application of the model in a capstone project setting. The paper concludes with recommendations for educators and curriculum designers to ensure that assessment practices remain robust, learner-centric, and integrity-driven in the evolving landscape of GenAI.

Blind and low vision (BLV) individuals use Generative AI (GenAI) tools to interpret and manage visual content in their daily lives. While such tools can enhance the accessibility of visual content and so enable greater user independence, they also introduce complex challenges around visual privacy. In this paper, we investigate the current practices and future design preferences of blind and low vision individuals through an interview study with 21 participants. Our findings reveal a range of current practices with GenAI that balance privacy, efficiency, and emotional agency, with users accounting for privacy risks across six key scenarios, such as self-presentation, indoor/outdoor spatial privacy, social sharing, and handling professional content. Our findings reveal design preferences, including on-device processing, zero-retention guarantees, sensitive content redaction, privacy-aware appearance indicators, and multimodal tactile mirrored interaction methods. We conclude with actionable design recommendations to support user-centered visual privacy through GenAI, expanding the notion of privacy and responsible handling of others data.

This study evaluates the implementation of a Generative AI-powered rule checking workflow within a graduate-level Building Information Modeling (BIM) course at a U.S. university. Over two semesters, 55 students participated in a classroom-based pilot exploring the use of GenAI for BIM compliance tasks, an area with limited prior research. The instructional design included lectures on prompt engineering and AI-driven rule checking, followed by an assignment where students used a large language model (LLM) to identify code violations in designs using Autodesk Revit. Surveys and interviews were conducted to assess student workload, learning effectiveness, and overall experience, using the NASA-TLX scale and regression analysis. Findings indicate students generally achieved learning objectives but faced challenges such as difficulties debugging AI-generated code and inconsistent tool performance, probably due to their limited prompt engineering experience. These issues increased cognitive and emotional strain, especially among students with minimal programming backgrounds. Despite these challenges, students expressed strong interest in future GenAI applications, particularly with clear instructional support.

This paper presents a new educational framework for integrating generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini into laboratory activities aimed at developing critical thinking and digital literacy among undergraduate students. Recognizing the limitations and risks of uncritical reliance on large language models (LLMs), the proposed pedagogical model reframes GenAI as a research subject and cognitive tool. Students formulate discipline-specific prompts and evaluate GenAI-generated responses in text, image, and video modalities. A pilot implementation in a general astronomy course for non-science majors demonstrated high levels of engagement and critical reflection, with many students continuing the activity after class and presenting results at a research symposium. The results highlight the importance of structured AI interactions in education and suggest that GenAI can improve learning outcomes when combined with reflective assessment methods. The study proposes a replicable model for interdisciplinary AI-integrated lab work, adaptable to scientific disciplines. See the guide to learning activities based on Generative-Ai platforms: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15555802

The aim of this paper is to review the use of GenAI in scientometrics, and to begin a debate on the broader implications for the field. First, we provide an introduction on GenAI's generative and probabilistic nature as rooted in distributional linguistics. And we relate this to the debate on the extent to which GenAI might be able to mimic human 'reasoning'. Second, we leverage this distinction for a critical engagement with recent experiments using GenAI in scientometrics, including topic labelling, the analysis of citation contexts, predictive applications, scholars' profiling, and research assessment. GenAI shows promise in tasks where language generation dominates, such as labelling, but faces limitations in tasks that require stable semantics, pragmatic reasoning, or structured domain knowledge. However, these results might become quickly outdated. Our recommendation is, therefore, to always strive to systematically compare the performance of different GenAI models for specific tasks. Third, we inquire whether, by generating large amounts of scientific language, GenAI might have a fundamental impact on our field by affecting textual characteristics used to measure science, such as authors, words, and references. We argue that careful empirical work and theoretical reflection will be essential to remain capable of interpreting the evolving patterns of knowledge production.

Generative AI tools have become more prevalent in engineering workflows, particularly through chatbots and code assistants. As the perceived accuracy of these tools improves, questions arise about whether and how those who work in high-precision domains might maintain vigilance for errors, and what other aspects of using such tools might trouble their work. This paper analyzes interviews with hardware and software engineers, and their collaborators, who work in integrated circuit design to identify the role accuracy plays in their use of generative AI tools and what other forms of trouble they face in using such tools. The paper inventories these forms of trouble, which are then mapped to elements of generative AI systems, to conclude that controlling the context of interactions between engineers and the generative AI tools is one of the largest challenges they face. The paper concludes with recommendations for mitigating this form of trouble by increasing the ability to control context interactively.