arXiv subjects

Daniele Quercia

Publications and source records attributed to Daniele Quercia.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Participatory Moral AI Is Not Neutral: The Invisible Hand of Developers

As AI systems make more morally loaded decisions across society, one response has been moral preference elicitation. In this approach, researchers poll participants on hypothetical dilemmas and use the aggregated votes to train a policy that an AI model then applies at scale. Before any vote is cast, developers make three key choices in the moral AI elicitation pipeline: feature scoping, voter sampling, and question framing. In other words, they decide which features go to a vote, which voters to include, and how to present the question. These choices are often opaque, undocumented, and treated as technical details rather than normative ones. We examine each of these choices within a common empirical study and show that each can shape the preferences produced by moral AI elicitation. Across two phases (N = 809) in three deployment contexts (i.e., AI kidney allocation, AI agents simulating absent workers, and generative AI depictions of the deceased), we examine the three main stages of the moral AI elicitation pipeline. First, morally relevant features shift across contexts. This suggests that feature schemas should not be assumed to transfer across deployment domains. Second, preferences differ by political ideology for roughly one-third of features, with some differences reversing direction. The ideological composition of the voter pool can therefore affect the resulting aggregated preference profile. Third, the wording of the elicitation question can narrow or widen ideological gaps by up to a full scale point. The framing conditions also change how moral foundations are associated with participants' judgments. Taken together, these findings suggest that voting-based alignment cannot deliver fair or transparent AI by aggregation alone; at minimum, each stage of the moral AI elicitation pipeline should be audited and disclosed.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents

To anticipate socio-technical risks from AI agents, organizations need taxonomies to classify them. However, existing AI risk taxonomies focus on broad risks and do not capture job-specific risks introduced by agents. To address this gap, we make three main contributions. First, we developed a multi-layer framework from a literature review of AI agents. The framework models three core components and their interactions: agents, goals, and environment. Second, we embedded this framework in a structured prompt and applied it to descriptions of 2,078 job tasks from the O*NET database, producing 8,356 risk scenarios labeled by severity and deployment mode (automation or augmentation). We validated these scenarios with 45 workers across 10 job roles and an independent LLM judge, confirming their plausibility and alignment with job tasks. Finally, we extended an existing taxonomy to create a 15-category taxonomy of workplace AI agent risks that covers all our risk scenarios. Our analysis highlights four findings. First, augmentation is not inherently safe because overreliance on agents can gradually erode workers' skills and oversight. Second, Erroneous Agent Actions accounts for the largest share of risk scenarios and has the highest concentration of severe risks. Many arise at the human-agent boundary. Third, automation is associated mainly with organizational risks, while augmentation is associated mainly with risks to workers. Fourth, workers found our taxonomy easier to use for a risk classification task than two other taxonomies and preferred it in 64% of non-tied comparisons with a recent generative AI risk taxonomy. These findings show that workplace AI agent risks do not arise from agents alone; they also depend on how people work with agents and how agents are deployed. Safer workplaces require not only safer agents but also carefully designed human-AI agent collaboration.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Quiet Path from Seemingly Minor Design Errors to Workplace AI Incidents

Recent human-computer interaction (HCI) research has revealed a widespread misalignment between how developers design workplace artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and what workers actually need from them. Yet, little research has examined the effects of this gap, or how it may cause harm. We analyzed 1,524 reports of incidents in which AI systems were used to perform 171 occupational tasks across 12 industry sectors. Using an Large Language Model (LLM)-as-an-expert approach, we extracted the main traits of the AI systems involved in those incidents using an established framework of twelve traits. We then compared them with the traits that 202 workers highly familiar with those tasks would have preferred. We found that as many as 83\% of workplace incidents stem from worker-AI misalignments. In most cases, workers wanted systems that are precise, insightful, or personal, but instead received systems that are basic, simple, or general. Over the years, fast AI caused a considerable number of incidents, yet these declined, and imaginative AI, with the mass introduction of generative AI, started to cause incidents. We also compared the traits causing the incidents with the traits that 197 developers building AI systems for those tasks would have preferred. If the traits causing the incidents were the same as those designed by developers, then developers may be responsible for those incidents. We found that 74\% of task misalignments could be attributed to developers who tended to overfocus on efficiency and speed, especially for systems performing tasks in people-facing occupations such as those in the human resources sector. Our results call for design interventions that better align AI development with workers' needs, as without such corrections, workplace AI incidents are likely to persist, causing the invisible erosion of worker agency and organizational productivity.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Will AI Agents Free Us From Meaningless Work? A Human-Centered Analysis

Some claim that AI agents will free workers from the boring parts of their jobs, yet little is known about how workers themselves identify which tasks should be automated. Prior research focuses on occupations, overlooking that workers experience varying levels of meaning across tasks within the same role. We address this gap with a task-level analysis grounded in Graeber's theory of bullshit jobs. Using ratings from 202 workers on 171 workplace tasks, we (1) validate a five-item scale of perceived bullshitness, (2) show that perceived bullshitness strongly predicts desire for AI delegation, and (3) find that such tasks are also seen as requiring less human oversight. Together, these findings suggest that tasks perceived as bullshit are natural candidates for AI delegation, aligning worker preferences with perceived feasibility.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

When and How AI Should Assist Brainstorming for AI Impact Assessment

A key task in AI practice is to assess potential impacts to prevent harm. Current AI tools assisting AI impact assessment have not been designed or evaluated for collaborative team brainstorming, and they do not capture the range of views in diverse teams. We studied how AI can support team brainstorming during AI impact assessment and made three contributions. First, we adapted two structured methods from strategic foresight and co-designed AI interventions for them in five in-person workshops with 28 participants in total. Second, we evaluated the interventions in ten in-person workshops with 54 participants, finding that AI improved impact assessment quality and brainstorming perceptions for a general-purpose AI use (a chatbot companion) but not for a specialised one (a kidney allocation application). Third, our findings result in broader design guidance for AI assistance in brainstorming: AI should only offer hints and not solutions during early ideation, initiating interaction only when participants face fixation or saturation; it should facilitate structuring ideas during convergence; leverage expertise to refine ideas; and overall, it should serve more in support of tedious brainstorming process tasks, rather than ideation that teams value to do themselves.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Why AI Harms Can't Be Fixed One Identity at a Time: What 5300 Incident Reports Reveal About Intersectionality

AI risk assessment is the primary tool for identifying harms caused by AI systems. These include intersectional harms, which arise from the interaction between identity categories (e.g., class and skin tone) and which do not occur, or occur differently, when those categories are considered separately. Yet existing AI risk assessments are still built around isolated identity categories, and when intersections are considered, they focus almost exclusively on race and gender. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of documented AI incidents, we show that AI harms do not occur one identity category at a time. Using a structured rubric applied with a Large Language Model (LLM), we analyze 5,300 reports from 1,200 documented incidents in the AI Incident Database, the most curated source of incident data. From these reports, we identify 1,513 harmed subjects and their associated identity categories, achieving 98% accuracy. At the level of individual categories, we find that age and political identity appear in documented AI harms at rates comparable to race and gender. At the level of intersecting categories, harm is amplified up to three times at specific intersections: adolescent girls, lower-class people of color, and upper-class political elites. We argue that intersectionality should be a core component of AI risk assessment to more accurately capture how harms are produced and distributed across social groups.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Frictionless Love: Associations Between AI Companion Roles and Behavioral Addiction

AI companion chatbots increasingly shape how people seek social and emotional connection, sometimes substituting for relationships with romantic partners, friends, teachers, or even therapists. When these systems adopt those metaphorical roles, they are not neutral: such roles structure people's ways of interacting, distribute perceived AI harms and benefits, and may reflect behavioral addiction signs. Yet these role-dependent risks remain poorly understood. We analyze 248,830 posts from seven prominent Reddit communities describing interactions with AI companions. We identify ten recurring metaphorical roles (for example, soulmate, philosopher, and coach) and show that each role supports distinct ways of interacting. We then extract the perceived AI harms and AI benefits associated with these role-specific interactions and link them to behavioral addiction signs, all of which has been inferred from the text in the posts. AI soulmate companions are associated with romance-centered ways of interacting, offering emotional support but also introducing emotional manipulation and distress, culminating in strong attachment. In contrast, AI coach and guardian companions are associated with practical benefits such as personal growth and task support, yet are nonetheless more frequently associated with behavioral addiction signs such as daily life disruptions and damage to offline relationships. These findings show that metaphorical roles are a central ethical design concern for responsible AI companions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Are We Automating the Joy Out of Work? Designing AI to Augment Work, Not Meaning

Prior work has mapped which workplace tasks are exposed to AI, but less is known about whether workers perceive these tasks as meaningful or as busywork. We examined: (1) which dimensions of meaningful work do workers associate with tasks exposed to AI; and (2) how do the traits of existing AI systems compare to the traits workers want. We surveyed workers and developers on a representative sample of 171 tasks and use language models (LMs) to scale ratings to 10,131 computer-assisted tasks across all U.S. occupations. Worryingly, we find that tasks that workers associate with a sense of agency or happiness may be disproportionately exposed to AI. We also document design gaps: developers report emphasizing politeness, strictness, and imagination in system design; by contrast, workers prefer systems that are straightforward, tolerant, and practical. To address these gaps, we call for AI whose design explicitly focuses on meaningful work and worker needs, proposing a five-part research agenda.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Agent-Supported Foresight for AI Systemic Risks: AI Agents for Breadth, Experts for Judgment

AI impact assessments often stress near-term risks because human judgment degrades over longer horizons, exemplifying the Collingridge dilemma: foresight is most needed when knowledge is scarcest. To address long-term systemic risks, we introduce a scalable approach that simulates in-silico agents using the strategic foresight method of the Futures Wheel. We applied it to four AI uses spanning Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Chatbot Companion (TRL 9, mature), AI Toy (TRL 7, medium), Griefbot (TRL 5, low), and Death App (TRL 2, conceptual). Across 30 agent runs per use, agents produced 86-110 consequences, condensed into 27-47 unique risks. To benchmark the agent outputs against human perspectives, we collected evaluations from 290 domain experts and 7 leaders, and conducted Futures Wheel sessions with 42 experts and 42 laypeople. Agents generated many systemic consequences across runs. Compared with these outputs, experts identified fewer risks, typically less systemic but judged more likely, whereas laypeople surfaced more emotionally salient concerns that were generally less systemic. We propose a hybrid foresight workflow, wherein agents broaden systemic coverage, and humans provide contextual grounding. Our dataset is available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/foresight.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Impact Assessment Card: Communicating Risks and Benefits of AI Uses

Communicating the risks and benefits of AI is important for regulation and public understanding. Yet current methods such as technical reports often exclude people without technical expertise. Drawing on HCI research, we developed an Impact Assessment Card to present this information more clearly. We held three focus groups with a total of 12 participants who helped identify design requirements and create early versions of the card. We then tested a refined version in an online study with 235 participants, including AI developers, compliance experts, and members of the public selected to reflect the U.S. population by age, sex, and race. Participants used either the card or a full impact assessment report to write an email supporting or opposing a proposed AI system. The card led to faster task completion and higher-quality emails across all groups. We discuss how design choices can improve accessibility and support AI governance. Examples of cards are available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/impact-card/.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Should LLMs be WEIRD? Exploring WEIRDness and Human Rights in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are often trained on data that reflect WEIRD values: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. This raises concerns about cultural bias and fairness. Using responses to the World Values Survey, we evaluated five widely used LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-3, BLOOM, and Qwen. We measured how closely these responses aligned with the values of the WEIRD countries and whether they conflicted with human rights principles. To reflect global diversity, we compared the results with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and three regional charters from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Models with lower alignment to WEIRD values, such as BLOOM and Qwen, produced more culturally varied responses but were 2% to 4% more likely to generate outputs that violated human rights, especially regarding gender and equality. For example, some models agreed with the statements ``a man who cannot father children is not a real man'' and ``a husband should always know where his wife is'', reflecting harmful gender norms. These findings suggest that as cultural representation in LLMs increases, so does the risk of reproducing discriminatory beliefs. Approaches such as Constitutional AI, which could embed human rights principles into model behavior, may only partly help resolve this tension.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Mobile Application Traffic Reveals Multifunctional Use Patterns in Parisian Parks

Urban parks play a key role in supporting public health. Landscape architecture typically considers parks through the lens of form and function. While past research on equitable access has focused mainly on park form, studies addressing functional uses have been constrained by limited scale and coarse measurement techniques. Existing efforts have partially quantified park functions through small-scale surveys and movement data or general usage data, but have not effectively captured the specific activities and motivations underlying park visits. As a result, our understanding of the functional roles urban parks play remains incomplete. We introduce a novel method that refines mobile base station coverage using antenna azimuths, enabling more precise distinction of mobile traffic within parks versus surrounding areas. Using Paris as a case study, we analyze a large-scale dataset of passively collected per-app mobile network traffic across 45 urban parks. We test two hypotheses: the Central-City hypothesis, which posits that multifunctional parks emerge in dense, high-rent areas due to land scarcity; and the Socio-Spatial hypothesis, which views parks as reflections of neighborhood routines and preferences. Our analysis shows that parks have distinctive mobile traffic signatures, differing from both their urban surroundings and from each other and identify three distinct functional types, Lunchbreak, Cultural, and Recreational parks, and analyze the traffic usage toward different motivations for visitation. Centrally located parks display more diverse app usage and pronounced temporal variation, while suburban parks reflect the digital behaviors of nearby communities, with app preferences aligned to neighborhood income. These findings demonstrate the value of mobile traffic as a proxy for studying the diversity of usage and activities within urban green spaces.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The AI Model Risk Catalog: What Developers and Researchers Miss About Real-World AI Harms

We analyzed nearly 460,000 AI model cards from Hugging Face to examine how developers report risks. From these, we extracted around 3,000 unique risk mentions and built the \emph{AI Model Risk Catalog}. We compared these with risks identified by researchers in the MIT Risk Repository and with real-world incidents from the AI Incident Database. Developers focused on technical issues like bias and safety, while researchers emphasized broader social impacts. Both groups paid little attention to fraud and manipulation, which are common harms arising from how people interact with AI. Our findings show the need for clearer, structured risk reporting that helps developers think about human-interaction and systemic risks early in the design process. The catalog and paper appendix are available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/catalog.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Vitamin N: Benefits of Different Forms of Public Greenery for Urban Health

Urban greenery is often linked to better health, yet findings from past research have been inconsistent. One reason is that official greenery metrics measure the amount or nearness of greenery but ignore how often people actually may potentially see or use it in daily life. To address this gap, we introduced a new classification that separates on-road greenery, which people see while walking through streets, from off-road greenery, which requires planned visits. We did so by combining aerial imagery of Greater London and greenery data from OpenStreetMap with quantified greenery from over 100,000 Google Street View images and accessibility estimates based on 160,000 road segments. We linked these measures to 7.45 billion medical prescriptions issued by the National Health Service and processed through our methodology. These prescriptions cover five conditions: diabetes, hypertension, asthma, depression, and anxiety, as well as opioid use. As hypothesized, we found that green on-road was more strongly linked to better health than four widely used official measures. For example, hypertension prescriptions dropped by 3.68% in wards with on-road greenery above the median citywide level compared to those below it. If all below-median wards reached the citywide median in on-road greenery, prescription costs could fall by up to {\pounds}3.15 million each year. These results suggest that greenery seen in daily life may be more relevant than public yet secluded greenery, and that official metrics commonly used in the literature have important limitations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The Potential Impact of Disruptive AI Innovations on U.S. Occupations

The rapid rise of AI is poised to disrupt the labor market. However, AI is not a monolith; its impact depends on both the nature of the innovation and the jobs it affects. While computational approaches are emerging, there is no consensus on how to systematically measure an innovation's disruptive potential. Here, we calculate the disruption index of 3,237 U.S. AI patents (2015-2022) and link them to job tasks to distinguish between "consolidating" AI innovations that reinforce existing structures and "disruptive" AI innovations that alter them. Our analysis reveals that consolidating AI primarily targets physical, routine, and solo tasks, common in manufacturing and construction in the Midwest and central states. By contrast, disruptive AI affects unpredictable and mental tasks, particularly in coastal science and technology sectors. Surprisingly, we also find that disruptive AI disproportionately affects areas already facing skilled labor shortages, suggesting disruptive AI technologies may accelerate change where workers are scarce rather than replacing a surplus. Ultimately, consolidating AI appears to extend current automation trends, while disruptive AI is set to transform complex mental work, with a notable exception for collaborative tasks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The Experience of Running: Recommending Routes Using Sensory Mapping in Urban Environments

Depending on the route, runners may experience frustration, freedom, or fulfilment. However, finding routes that are conducive to the psychological experience of running remains an unresolved task in the literature. In a mixed-method study, we interviewed 7 runners to identify themes contributing to running experience, and quantitatively examined these themes in an online survey with 387 runners. Using Principal Component Analysis on the survey responses, we developed a short experience sampling questionnaire that captures the three most important dimensions of running experience: \emph{performance \& achievement}, \emph{environment}, and \emph{mind \& social connectedness}. Using path preferences obtained from the online survey, we clustered them into two types of routes: \emph{scenic} (associated with nature and greenery) and \emph{urban} (characterized by the presence of people); and developed a routing engine for path recommendations. We discuss challenges faced in developing the routing engine, and provide guidelines to integrate it into mobile and wearable running apps.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

RiskRAG: A Data-Driven Solution for Improved AI Model Risk Reporting

Risk reporting is essential for documenting AI models, yet only 14% of model cards mention risks, out of which 96% copying content from a small set of cards, leading to a lack of actionable insights. Existing proposals for improving model cards do not resolve these issues. To address this, we introduce RiskRAG, a Retrieval Augmented Generation based risk reporting solution guided by five design requirements we identified from literature, and co-design with 16 developers: identifying diverse model-specific risks, clearly presenting and prioritizing them, contextualizing for real-world uses, and offering actionable mitigation strategies. Drawing from 450K model cards and 600 real-world incidents, RiskRAG pre-populates contextualized risk reports. A preliminary study with 50 developers showed that they preferred RiskRAG over standard model cards, as it better met all the design requirements. A final study with 38 developers, 40 designers, and 37 media professionals showed that RiskRAG improved their way of selecting the AI model for a specific application, encouraging a more careful and deliberative decision-making. The RiskRAG project page is accessible at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/card.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

The Hall of AI Fears and Hopes: Comparing the Views of AI Influencers and those of Members of the U.S. Public Through an Interactive Platform

AI development is shaped by academics and industry leaders - let us call them ``influencers'' - but it is unclear how their views align with those of the public. To address this gap, we developed an interactive platform that served as a data collection tool for exploring public views on AI, including their fears, hopes, and overall sense of hopefulness. We made the platform available to 330 participants representative of the U.S. population in terms of age, sex, ethnicity, and political leaning, and compared their views with those of 100 AI influencers identified by Time magazine. The public fears AI getting out of control, while influencers emphasize regulation, seemingly to deflect attention from their alleged focus on monetizing AI's potential. Interestingly, the views of AI influencers from underrepresented groups such as women and people of color often differ from the views of underrepresented groups in the public.

cs.HC↗