arXiv subjects

Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh

Publications and source records attributed to Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"Always Want to Use it for Everything": Understanding Young Adults' Perceptions of AI Dependence

The growing integration of general-purpose AI chatbots into people's daily lives has raised concerns about the potential for unhealthy dependence, particularly among young adults. As a first step toward understanding and characterizing AI chatbot dependence from the perspective of young adults, we collected testimonials from AI chatbot users aged 18 to 25 through an online questionnaire to capture their thoughts and experiences with this phenomenon. From participant responses, we identified three contributing factors of AI dependence: chronic use, efficiency, and delegation. The combination of these in a person's interaction behavior was considered to indicate AI dependence. Participants also observed feelings of atrophy in abilities from AI dependence, leading to psychological impacts such as feelings of inadequacy. Interpreting these findings through the lens of self-determination theory reveals how AI chatbot dependence can impact young adults' personal and social development. We argue that preventing lasting harm to young adults' development is paramount, and provide implications for rethinking AI chatbot dependence grounded in this understanding.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Psychological Influences of Conversational AI: Research and Design Directions for Reducing Harm and Promoting Well-Being

As conversational AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential effects on user well-being require ongoing attention. While consumer-facing generalist models can provide benefits, including improved access to information, learning, productivity, self-reflection, and companionship, they also introduce risks, such as emotional entanglement, unhealthy dependence, and the amplification of psychological vulnerabilities. Drawing on prior research and empirical observations of AI chatbot behavior, we propose a set of aspirational directions for guiding the behavior of general-purpose AI systems in ways that may reduce potential psychological harms and support user well-being. We acknowledge the difficulty of systematically assessing the long-term impacts of AI chatbot use and frame these directions as hypotheses for studying how AI behavior may influence users across general interactions, role-playing scenarios, and contexts that could be characterized as providing psychological support. While some proposed directions are supported by existing research and expert insights, others identify open questions and areas requiring deeper study. We hope that this formulation and these hypotheses encourage further discussion, empirical investigation, and exploration of interactive design approaches aimed at better accommodating users' psychological needs and promoting their well-being.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Steering Language Model Refusal with Sparse Autoencoders

Responsible deployment of language models requires mechanisms for refusing unsafe prompts while preserving model performance. While most approaches modify model weights through additional training, we explore an alternative: steering model activations at inference time via amplifying sparse autoencoder (SAE) features that mediate refusal. This work uncovers a fundamental tension between SAE steering-based safety improvements and general model capabilities. While feature steering successfully improves robustness against both single-turn and challenging multi-turn jailbreak attempts, we discover that this comes at a previously underexplored cost -- systematic degradation of performance across multiple benchmark tasks, even on safe inputs with no apparent connection to refusal behavior. This suggests that features mediating refusal may be more deeply entangled with general language model capabilities than previously understood. Our findings reveal important open questions about the nature of safety-relevant features in language models and the feasibility of isolating them for targeted intervention. While SAE-based steering shows promise as a flexible approach to enhancing language model safety, our results highlight the critical need to understand and address the mechanisms behind these capability tradeoffs before such techniques can be practically deployed.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Aligning Offline Metrics and Human Judgments of Value for Code Generation Models

Large language models have demonstrated great potential to assist programmers in generating code. For such human-AI pair programming scenarios, we empirically demonstrate that while generated code is most often evaluated in terms of their functional correctness (i.e., whether generations pass available unit tests), correctness does not fully capture (e.g., may underestimate) the productivity gains these models may provide. Through a user study with N = 49 experienced programmers, we show that while correctness captures high-value generations, programmers still rate code that fails unit tests as valuable if it reduces the overall effort needed to complete a coding task. Finally, we propose a hybrid metric that combines functional correctness and syntactic similarity and show that it achieves a 14% stronger correlation with value and can therefore better represent real-world gains when evaluating and comparing models.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability

With machine learning models being increasingly used to aid decision making even in high-stakes domains, there has been a growing interest in developing interpretable models. Although many supposedly interpretable models have been proposed, there have been relatively few experimental studies investigating whether these models achieve their intended effects, such as making people more closely follow a model's predictions when it is beneficial for them to do so or enabling them to detect when a model has made a mistake. We present a sequence of pre-registered experiments (N=3,800) in which we showed participants functionally identical models that varied only in two factors commonly thought to make machine learning models more or less interpretable: the number of features and the transparency of the model (i.e., whether the model internals are clear or black box). Predictably, participants who saw a clear model with few features could better simulate the model's predictions. However, we did not find that participants more closely followed its predictions. Furthermore, showing participants a clear model meant that they were less able to detect and correct for the model's sizable mistakes, seemingly due to information overload. These counterintuitive findings emphasize the importance of testing over intuition when developing interpretable models.

cs.AI↗