Throughout application domains, we now rely extensively on algorithmic systems to engage with ever-expanding datasets of information. Despite their benefits, these systems are often complex (comprising of many intricate tools, e.g., moderation, recommender systems, prediction models), of unknown structure (due to the lack of accompanying documentation), and having hard-to-predict yet potentially severe downstream consequences (due to the extensive use, systematic enactment of existing errors, and many comprising feedback loops). As such, understanding and evaluating these systems as a whole remains a challenge for both researchers and legislators. To aid ongoing efforts, we introduce a formal framework for such visibility allocation systems (VASs) which we define as (semi-)automated systems deciding which (processed) data to present a human user with. We review typical tools comprising VASs and define the associated computational problems they solve. By doing so, VASs can be decomposed into sub-processes and illustrated via data flow diagrams. Moreover, we survey metrics for evaluating VASs throughout the pipeline, thus aiding system diagnostics. Using forecasting-based recommendations in school choice as a case study, we demonstrate how our framework can support VAS evaluation. We also discuss how our framework can support ongoing AI-legislative efforts to locate obligations, quantify systemic risks, and enable adaptive compliance.

Unresolved questions about how autonomous vehicles (AVs) should meet the informational needs of riders hinder real-world adoption. Complicating our ability to satisfy rider needs is that different people, goals, and driving contexts have different criteria for what constitutes interaction success. Unfortunately, most human-AV research and design today treats all people and situations uniformly. It is crucial to understand how an AV should communicate to meet rider needs, and how communications should change when the human-AV complex system changes. I argue that understanding the relationships between different aspects of the human-AV system can help us build improved and adaptable AV communications. I support this argument using three empirical studies. First, I identify optimal communication strategies that enhance driving performance, confidence, and trust for learning in extreme driving environments. Findings highlight the need for task-sensitive, modality-appropriate communications tuned to learner cognitive limits and goals. Next, I highlight the consequences of deploying faulty communication systems and demonstrate the need for context-sensitive communications. Third, I use machine learning (ML) to illuminate personal factors predicting trust in AVs, emphasizing the importance of tailoring designs to individual traits and concerns. Together, this dissertation supports the necessity of transparent, adaptable, and personalized AV systems that cater to individual needs, goals, and contextual demands. By considering the complex system within which human-AV interactions occur, we can deliver valuable insights for designers, researchers, and policymakers. This dissertation also provides a concrete domain to study theories of human-machine joint action and situational awareness, and can be used to guide future human-AI interaction research. [shortened for arxiv]

Whether tapped directly on the web, or embedded in software suites, search engines, and social media platforms, LLMs are everywhere. When a technology jumps this quickly from theoretical plaything to consumer service, many other elements are also settling in around it, without much forethought: interfaces, policies, business models, labor arrangements, infrastructural assurances, complementary technologies, public claims, advertising campaigns, regulations. Researchers studying the workings and implications of these technologies, across computer science, engineering, the social sciences, humanities, and law, must gear up just as fast to study not just the core technology, but the sociotechnical system taking shape around it[19]. Many of these decisions, arrangements, and infrastructures may turn out to be as consequential for users and the broader public as the core technology itself. But the boisterous promises and debates that surround a new technology can obscure these other essential elements that make technologies always more than the sum of their engineered parts. In this essay, we hope to call upon computer scientists and social scientists alike to pay closer, critical attention to thephenomenonof"red-teaming."

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have become an indispensable component of modern technology. However, research on human behavioral responses is lagging behind, i.e., the research into human reliance on AI advice (AI reliance). Current shortcomings in the literature include the unclear influences on AI reliance, lack of external validity, conflicting approaches to measuring reliance, and disregard for a change in reliance over time. Promising avenues for future research include reliance on generative AI output and reliance in multi-user situations. In conclusion, we present a morphological box that serves as a guide for research on AI reliance.

The burgeoning integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human society brings forth significant implications for societal governance and safety. While considerable strides have been made in addressing AI alignment challenges, existing methodologies primarily focus on technical facets, often neglecting the intricate sociotechnical nature of AI systems, which can lead to a misalignment between the development and deployment contexts. To this end, we posit a new problem worth exploring: Incentive Compatibility Sociotechnical Alignment Problem (ICSAP). We hope this can call for more researchers to explore how to leverage the principles of Incentive Compatibility (IC) from game theory to bridge the gap between technical and societal components to maintain AI consensus with human societies in different contexts. We further discuss three classical game problems for achieving IC: mechanism design, contract theory, and Bayesian persuasion, in addressing the perspectives, potentials, and challenges of solving ICSAP, and provide preliminary implementation conceptions.

Mukund Srinath (left on photo) and Pranav Venkit (right). In their paper The Sentiment Problem: A Critical Survey towards Deconstructing Sentiment Analysis, Pranav Venkit and Mukund Srinath, and co-authors Sanjana Gautam, Saranya Venkatraman, Vipul Gupta, Rebecca J. Passonneau and Shomir Wilson, present a review of the sociotechnical aspects of sentiment analysis. In this interview, Pranav and Mukund tell us more about sentiment analysis, how they went about surveying the literature, and recommendations for researchers in the field. Sentiment analysis, often referred to as opinion mining, is a branch of natural language processing (NLP) that focuses on determining and extracting the emotional tone or sentiment expressed in text data, such as reviews, social media posts, or any written content. This is the cumulative brief definition that is most commonly used in NLP.

Many stakeholders struggle to make reliances on ML-driven systems due to the risk of harm these systems may cause. Concerns of trustworthiness, unintended social harms, and unacceptable social and ethical violations undermine the promise of ML advancements. Moreover, such risks in complex ML-driven systems present a special challenge as they are often difficult to foresee, arising over periods of time, across populations, and at scale. These risks often arise not from poor ML development decisions or low performance directly but rather emerge through the interactions amongst ML development choices, the context of model use, environmental factors, and the effects of a model on its target. Systems safety engineering is an established discipline with a proven track record of identifying and managing risks even in high-complexity sociotechnical systems. In this work, we apply a state-of-the-art systems safety approach to concrete applications of ML with notable social and ethical risks to demonstrate a systematic means for meeting the assurance requirements needed to argue for safe and trustworthy ML in sociotechnical systems.

Governments, industry, and academia have undertaken efforts to identify and mitigate harms in ML-driven systems, with a particular focus on social and ethical risks of ML components in complex sociotechnical systems. However, existing approaches are largely disjointed, ad-hoc and of unknown effectiveness. Systems safety engineering is a well established discipline with a track record of identifying and managing risks in many complex sociotechnical domains. We adopt the natural hypothesis that tools from this domain could serve to enhance risk analyses of ML in its context of use. To test this hypothesis, we apply a "best of breed" systems safety analysis, Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), to a specific high-consequence system with an important ML-driven component, namely the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) operated by many US States, several of which rely on an ML-derived risk score. We focus in particular on how this analysis can extend to identifying social and ethical risks and developing concrete design-level controls to mitigate them.

As the Chief Procurement Officer of BAM. Inc., Akmal considered himself more progressive than CPOs at other companies, and he had the suite of predictive AI tools to prove it. "There's more to procurement than managing constraints and winning in the margins," he had said to the CFO when making the case for the system. "We need more visibility into our supplier tiers, and we have got to be more nimble." The CFO was somewhat less than enthusiastic at first. What was a CPO doing thinking about AI anyway? After some convincing, however, the CFO signed off on the investment and the Chief Technology Officer joined the effort to bring AI to procurement at BAM, Inc.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays an ever-expanding role in sociotechnical systems, it is important to articulate the relationships between humans and AI. However, the scholarly communities studying human-AI relationships -- including but not limited to social computing, machine learning, science and technology studies, and other social sciences -- are divided by the perspectives that define them. These perspectives vary both by their focus on humans or AI, and in the micro/macro lenses through which they approach subjects. These differences inhibit the integration of findings, and thus impede science and interdisciplinarity. In this position paper, we propose the development of a framework AI-Mediated Exchange Theory (AI-MET) to bridge these divides. As an extension to Social Exchange Theory (SET) in the social sciences, AI-MET views AI as influencing human-to-human relationships via a taxonomy of mediation mechanisms. We list initial ideas of these mechanisms, and show how AI-MET can be used to help human-AI research communities speak to one another.