arXiv subjects

Jaeyoon Song

Publications and source records attributed to Jaeyoon Song.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Uplift

Current frontier AI safety evaluations emphasize static benchmarks, third-party annotations, and red-teaming. In this position paper, we argue that AI safety research should focus on human-centered evaluations that measure harmful capability uplift: the marginal increase in a user's ability to cause harm with a frontier model beyond what conventional tools already enable. We frame harmful capability uplift as a core AI safety metric, ground it in prior social science research, and provide concrete methodological guidance for systematic measurement. We conclude with actionable steps for developers, researchers, funders, and regulators to make harmful capability uplift evaluation a standard practice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Togedule: Scheduling Meetings with Large Language Models and Adaptive Representations of Group Availability

Scheduling is a perennial-and often challenging-problem for many groups. Existing tools are mostly static, showing an identical set of choices to everyone, regardless of the current status of attendees' inputs and preferences. In this paper, we propose Togedule, an adaptive scheduling tool that uses large language models to dynamically adjust the pool of choices and their presentation format. With the initial prototype, we conducted a formative study (N=10) and identified the potential benefits and risks of such an adaptive scheduling tool. Then, after enhancing the system, we conducted two controlled experiments, one each for attendees and organizers (total N=66). For each experiment, we compared scheduling with verbal messages, shared calendars, or Togedule. Results show that Togedule significantly reduces the cognitive load of attendees indicating their availability and improves the speed and quality of the decisions made by organizers.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

A Risk Taxonomy and Reflection Tool for Large Language Model Adoption in Public Health

Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have generated both interest and concern about their potential adoption as information sources or communication tools across different domains. In public health, where stakes are high and impacts extend across diverse populations, adopting LLMs poses unique challenges that require thorough evaluation. However, structured approaches for assessing potential risks in public health remain under-explored. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups with public health professionals and individuals with lived experience to unpack their concerns, situated across three distinct and critical public health issues that demand high-quality information: infectious disease prevention (vaccines), chronic and well-being care (opioid use disorder), and community health and safety (intimate partner violence). We synthesize participants' perspectives into a risk taxonomy, identifying and contextualizing the potential harms LLMs may introduce when positioned alongside traditional health communication. This taxonomy highlights four dimensions of risk to individuals, human-centered care, information ecosystem, and technology accountability. For each dimension, we unpack specific risks and offer example reflection questions to help practitioners adopt a risk-reflexive approach. By summarizing distinctive LLM characteristics and linking them to identified risks, we discuss the need to revisit prior mental models of information behaviors and complement evaluations with external validity and domain expertise through lived experience and real-world practices. Together, this work contributes a shared vocabulary and reflection tool for people in both computing and public health to collaboratively anticipate, evaluate, and mitigate risks in deciding when to employ LLM capabilities (or not) and how to mitigate harm.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

A Test for Evaluating Performance in Human-Computer Systems

The Turing test for comparing computer performance to that of humans is well known, but, surprisingly, there is no widely used test for comparing how much better human-computer systems perform relative to humans alone, computers alone, or other baselines. Here, we show how to perform such a test using the ratio of means as a measure of effect size. Then we demonstrate the use of this test in three ways. First, in an analysis of 79 recently published experimental results, we find that, surprisingly, over half of the studies find a decrease in performance, the mean and median ratios of performance improvement are both approximately 1 (corresponding to no improvement at all), and the maximum ratio is 1.36 (a 36% improvement). Second, we experimentally investigate whether a higher performance improvement ratio is obtained when 100 human programmers generate software using GPT-3, a massive, state-of-the-art AI system. In this case, we find a speed improvement ratio of 1.27 (a 27% improvement). Finally, we find that 50 human non-programmers using GPT-3 can perform the task about as well as--and less expensively than--the human programmers. In this case, neither the non-programmers nor the computer would have been able to perform the task alone, so this is an example of a very strong form of human-computer synergy.

cs.HC↗