arXiv subjects

Hannah Cha

Publications and source records attributed to Hannah Cha.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond "I Can't Help With That": How Child Safety Experts Evaluate AI Chatbot Safety

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Level

Personalized, generative AI systems increasingly adapt their behavior to individual users over time, fundamentally changing model behavior. While existing auditing approaches have been effective at surfacing harms in non-personalized contexts, they often rely on static, simulated evaluations and definitions of harm that aggregate across broad, group categories. In this position paper, we argue that such approaches can fail to capture emergent harms in personalized generative AI systems, where harms surface through interpretations of ongoing interaction and evolve with user history. We identify three presuppositions underlying many harm auditing paradigms: that harms can be (1) specified outside real-world interaction, (2) defined non-pluralistically within groups, and (3) treated as static. One might argue that personalized systems could simply learn definitions of what constitutes harm to individual users through repeated interactions. However, we argue that attempts to surface user harms through deeper personalization risk imposing asymmetric burdens of labor and privacy on marginalized users. Consequently, we propose reframing understandings of harm as adaptive, user- and community-centered processes, and outline design directions that shift auditing from retrospective evaluation toward infrastructures that support ongoing articulation of harm in interaction. Our work highlights the need for auditing and design practices that better reflect the pluralistic and evolving nature of harm understanding in personalized generative AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Effects of Generative AI Errors on User Reliance Across Task Difficulty

The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Whose Knowledge Counts? Co-Designing Community-Centered AI Auditing Tools with Educators in Hawai`i

Although generative AI is being deployed into classrooms with promises of aiding teachers, educators caution that these tools can have unintended pedagogical repercussions, including cultural misrepresentation and bias. These concerns are heightened in low-resource language and Indigenous education settings, where AI systems frequently underperform. We investigate these challenges in Hawai`i, where public schools operate under a statewide mandate to integrate Hawaiian language and culture into education. Through four co-design workshops with 22 public school educators, we surfaced concerns about using generative AI in educational settings, particularly around cultural misrepresentation, and corresponding designs for auditing tools that address these issues. We find that educators envision tools grounded in specific Hawaiian cultural values and practices, such as tracing the genealogy of knowledge in source materials. Building on these insights, we conceptualize AI auditing as a community-oriented process rather than the work of isolated individuals, and discuss implications for designing auditing tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Attention to Non-Adopters

Although language model-based chat systems are increasingly used in daily life, most Americans remain non-adopters of chat-based LLMs -- as of June 2025, 66% had never used ChatGPT. At the same time, LLM development and evaluation rely mainly on data from adopters (e.g., logs, preference data), focusing on the needs and tasks for a limited demographic group of adopters in terms of geographic location, education, and gender. In this position paper, we argue that incorporating non-adopter perspectives is essential for developing broadly useful and capable LLMs. We contend that relying on methods that focus primarily on adopters will risk missing a range of tasks and needs prioritized by non-adopters, entrenching inequalities in who benefits from LLMs, and creating oversights in model development and evaluation. To illustrate this claim, we conduct case studies with non-adopters and show: how non-adopter needs diverge from those of current users, how non-adopter needs point us towards novel reasoning tasks, and how to systematically integrate non-adopter needs via human-centered methods.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

CRAFT: Designing Creative and Functional 3D Objects

For designing a wide range of everyday objects, the design process should be aware of both the human body and the underlying semantics of the design specification. However, these two objectives present significant challenges to the current AI-based designing tools. In this work, we present a method to synthesize body-aware 3D objects from a base mesh given an input body geometry and either text or image as guidance. The generated objects can be simulated on virtual characters, or fabricated for real-world use. We propose to use a mesh deformation procedure that optimizes for both semantic alignment as well as contact and penetration losses. Using our method, users can generate both virtual or real-world objects from text, image, or sketch, without the need for manual artist intervention. We present both qualitative and quantitative results on various object categories, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

MARPLE: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Inference

Reconstructing past events requires reasoning across long time horizons. To figure out what happened, we need to use our prior knowledge about the world and human behavior and draw inferences from various sources of evidence including visual, language, and auditory cues. We introduce MARPLE, a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon inference capabilities using multi-modal evidence. Our benchmark features agents interacting with simulated households, supporting vision, language, and auditory stimuli, as well as procedurally generated environments and agent behaviors. Inspired by classic ``whodunit'' stories, we ask AI models and human participants to infer which agent caused a change in the environment based on a step-by-step replay of what actually happened. The goal is to correctly identify the culprit as early as possible. Our findings show that human participants outperform both traditional Monte Carlo simulation methods and an LLM baseline (GPT-4) on this task. Compared to humans, traditional inference models are less robust and performant, while GPT-4 has difficulty comprehending environmental changes. We analyze what factors influence inference performance and ablate different modes of evidence, finding that all modes are valuable for performance. Overall, our experiments demonstrate that the long-horizon, multimodal inference tasks in our benchmark present a challenge to current models.

cs.LG↗