arXiv subjects

Mary L. Gray

Publications and source records attributed to Mary L. Gray.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI red-teaming is a sociotechnical problem: on values, labor, and harms

As generative AI technologies find more and more real-world applications, the importance of testing their performance and safety seems paramount. "Red-teaming" has quickly become the primary approach to test AI models--prioritized by AI companies, and enshrined in AI policy and regulation. Members of red teams act as adversaries, probing AI systems to test their safety mechanisms and uncover vulnerabilities. Yet we know far too little about this work or its implications. This essay calls for collaboration between computer scientists and social scientists to study the sociotechnical systems surrounding AI technologies, including the work of red-teaming, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the recent past. We highlight the importance of understanding the values and assumptions behind red-teaming, the labor arrangements involved, and the psychological impacts on red-teamers, drawing insights from the lessons learned around the work of content moderation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Effective Automation to Support the Human Infrastructure in AI Red Teaming

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly embedded in critical societal functions, the need for robust red teaming methodologies continues to grow. In this forum piece, we examine emerging approaches to automating AI red teaming, with a particular focus on how the application of automated methods affects human-driven efforts. We discuss the role of labor in automated red teaming processes, the benefits and limitations of automation, and its broader implications for AI safety and labor practices. Drawing on existing frameworks and case studies, we argue for a balanced approach that combines human expertise with automated tools to strengthen AI risk assessment. Finally, we highlight key challenges in scaling automated red teaming, including considerations around worker proficiency, agency, and context-awareness.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

AURA: Amplifying Understanding, Resilience, and Awareness for Responsible AI Content Work

Behind the scenes of maintaining the safety of technology products from harmful and illegal digital content lies unrecognized human labor. The recent rise in the use of generative AI technologies and the accelerating demands to meet responsible AI (RAI) aims necessitates an increased focus on the labor behind such efforts in the age of AI. This study investigates the nature and challenges of content work that supports RAI efforts, or "RAI content work," that span content moderation, data labeling, and red teaming -- through the lived experiences of content workers. We conduct a formative survey and semi-structured interview studies to develop a conceptualization of RAI content work and a subsequent framework of recommendations for providing holistic support for content workers. We validate our recommendations through a series of workshops with content workers and derive considerations for and examples of implementing such recommendations. We discuss how our framework may guide future innovation to support the well-being and professional development of the RAI content workforce.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing

Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in "red teaming," a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing body of HCI and CSCW literature examines related practices-including data labeling, content moderation, and algorithmic auditing. However, few, if any have investigated red teaming itself. Future studies may explore topics ranging from fairness to mental health and other areas of potential harm. We aim to facilitate a community of researchers and practitioners who can begin to meet these challenges with creativity, innovation, and thoughtful reflection.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Participation in the age of foundation models

Growing interest and investment in the capabilities of foundation models has positioned such systems to impact a wide array of public services. Alongside these opportunities is the risk that these systems reify existing power imbalances and cause disproportionate harm to marginalized communities. Participatory approaches hold promise to instead lend agency and decision-making power to marginalized stakeholders. But existing approaches in participatory AI/ML are typically deeply grounded in context - how do we apply these approaches to foundation models, which are, by design, disconnected from context? Our paper interrogates this question. First, we examine existing attempts at incorporating participation into foundation models. We highlight the tension between participation and scale, demonstrating that it is intractable for impacted communities to meaningfully shape a foundation model that is intended to be universally applicable. In response, we develop a blueprint for participatory foundation models that identifies more local, application-oriented opportunities for meaningful participation. In addition to the "foundation" layer, our framework proposes the "subfloor'' layer, in which stakeholders develop shared technical infrastructure, norms and governance for a grounded domain, and the "surface'' layer, in which affected communities shape the use of a foundation model for a specific downstream task. The intermediate "subfloor'' layer scopes the range of potential harms to consider, and affords communities more concrete avenues for deliberation and intervention. At the same time, it avoids duplicative effort by scaling input across relevant use cases. Through three case studies in clinical care, financial services, and journalism, we illustrate how this multi-layer model can create more meaningful opportunities for participation than solely intervening at the foundation layer.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Can Workers Meaningfully Consent to Workplace Wellbeing Technologies?

Sensing technologies deployed in the workplace can unobtrusively collect detailed data about individual activities and group interactions that are otherwise difficult to capture. A hopeful application of these technologies is that they can help businesses and workers optimize productivity and wellbeing. However, given the workplace's inherent and structural power dynamics, the prevalent approach of accepting tacit compliance to monitor work activities rather than seeking workers' meaningful consent raises privacy and ethical concerns. This paper unpacks the challenges workers face when consenting to workplace wellbeing technologies. Using a hypothetical case to prompt reflection among six multi-stakeholder focus groups involving 15 participants, we explored participants' expectations and capacity to consent to these technologies. We sketched possible interventions that could better support meaningful consent to workplace wellbeing technologies by drawing on critical computing and feminist scholarship -- which reframes consent from a purely individual choice to a structural condition experienced at the individual level that needs to be freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, and specific (FRIES). The focus groups revealed how workers are vulnerable to "meaningless" consent -- as they may be subject to power dynamics that minimize their ability to withhold consent and may thus experience an erosion of autonomy, also undermining the value of data gathered in the name of "wellbeing." To meaningfully consent, participants wanted changes to the technology and to the policies and practices surrounding the technology. Our mapping of what prevents workers from meaningfully consenting to workplace wellbeing technologies (challenges) and what they require to do so (interventions) illustrates how the lack of meaningful consent is a structural problem requiring socio-technical solutions.

cs.HC↗