Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.27675

Agents for Everyone: A Workshop Framework for Building Agentic AI Capabilities in a Distributed Curation Community

Seth Carbon·Sierra Moxon·Kimberly Van Auken·Pascale Gaudet·Christopher J. Mungall
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Agentic AI has the potential to accelerate curation of biological databases and knowledge bases. However, uptake has been hindered by a number of challenges and obstacles, including access to agents and appropriate training. Here we describe how we have attempted to address and mitigate these challenges and obstacles through the deployment of a cloud-based agentic environment, and the development of an interactive training workshop for the Gene Ontology Consortium. Our cloud environment for agentic-assisted curation was based on the JupyterHub platform, and utilized Claude Code as a universal harness. This allows curators to interact with an agent session through a terminal running in the browser, and has additional benefits such as centralization of access through a single API gateway, removing the need for participants to manage subscriptions or install software locally. We created four training modules, walking participants through basic agentic tool use first and then working up to agentic biological pathway curation using the existing GO-CAM (GO Causal Activity Model) curation tool. Thirty-seven participants took part in the four-hour workshop. Our key takeaway from this workshop is that building community capability with agentic AI is primarily a problem of access, workflow design, and training. Removing technical barriers, introducing capabilities gradually, grounding exercises in familiar curation tasks, and giving curators direct experience evaluating agent output can provide a practical route toward building shared agentic AI capability in distributed scientific communities.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Seth Carbon, Sierra Moxon, Kimberly Van Auken, Pascale Gaudet, Christopher J. Mungall. 2026-08-27. Agents for Everyone: A Workshop Framework for Building Agentic AI Capabilities in a Distributed Curation Community. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27675

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

arXiv2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

"An Endless Stream of AI Slop": How Developers Discuss the Burden of AI-Assisted Software Development

"AI slop", that is, low-quality AI-generated content, is increasingly affecting software development, from generated code and pull requests to documentation and bug reports. However, there is limited empirical research on how developers perceive and respond to this phenomenon. We qualitatively analyzed how developers discuss AI slop in 1,154 Reddit and Hacker News posts, developing a codebook of 15 codes organized into three thematic clusters: Review Friction (how AI slop burdens reviewers, erodes trust, and prompts countermeasures), Quality Degradation (damage to codebases, knowledge resources, and developer competence), and Forces and Consequences (systemic incentives, mandated adoption, craft erosion, and workforce disruption). Our findings frame AI slop as a tragedy of the commons, where individual productivity gains externalize costs onto reviewers, maintainers, and the broader community. We report the concerns developers raise and the mitigation strategies they propose, with implications for tool developers, team leads, and educators.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text \citep{andreDetectingAIAuthorship2023, shahDetectingUnmaskingAIGenerated2023, oparaStyloAIDistinguishingAIGenerated2024, soto2024fewshot, liLinguisticDifferencesAI2025, selviogluFeatureExtractionAnalysis2025}. But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent ``stylometric footprint'': a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human-written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that ``AI text'' is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

cs.CL↗