arXiv subjects

Maurice Jakesch

Publications and source records attributed to Maurice Jakesch.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Through the Looking-Glass: AI-Mediated Video Communication Reduces Interpersonal Trust and Confidence in Judgments

AI-based tools that mediate, enhance or generate parts of video communication may interfere with how people evaluate trustworthiness and credibility. In two preregistered online experiments (N = 2,000), we examined whether AI-mediated video retouching, background replacement and avatars affect interpersonal trust, people's ability to detect lies and confidence in their judgments. Participants watched short videos of speakers making truthful or deceptive statements across three conditions with varying levels of AI mediation. We observed that perceived trust and confidence in judgments declined in AI-mediated videos, particularly in settings in which some participants used avatars while others did not. However, participants' actual judgment accuracy remained unchanged, and they were no more inclined to suspect those using AI tools of lying. Our findings provide evidence against concerns that AI mediation undermines people's ability to distinguish truth from lies, and against cue-based accounts of lie detection more generally. They highlight the importance of trustworthy AI mediation tools in contexts where not only truth, but also trust and confidence matter.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Reactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas

Emerging experimental evidence shows that writing with AI assistance can change both the views people express in writing and the opinions they hold afterwards. Yet, we lack substantive understanding of procedural and behavioral changes in co-writing with AI that underlie the observed opinion-shaping power of AI writing tools. We conducted a mixed-methods study, combining retrospective interviews with 19 participants about their AI co-writing experience with a quantitative analysis tracing engagement with ideas and opinions in 1{,}291 AI co-writing sessions. Our analysis shows that engaging with the AI's suggestions -- reading them and deciding whether to accept them -- becomes a central activity in the writing process, taking away from more traditional processes of ideation and language generation. As writers often do not complete their own ideation before engaging with suggestions, the suggested ideas and opinions seeded directions that writers then elaborated on. At the same time, writers did not notice the AI's influence and felt in full control of their writing, as they -- in principle -- could always edit the final text. We term this shift \textit{Reactive Writing}: an evaluation-first, suggestion-led writing practice that departs substantially from conventional composing in the presence of AI assistance and is highly vulnerable to AI-induced biases and opinion shifts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Effects of Personality- and Opinion-Alignment in Human-AI Interaction

Interactions with AI assistants are increasingly personalized to individual users. As AI personalization is dynamic and machine-learning-driven, we have limited understanding of how personalization affects interaction outcomes and user perceptions. We conducted a large-scale controlled experiment in which 1,000 participants interacted with AI assistants prompted to take on specific personality traits and opinions. Our results show that participants consistently preferred to interact with models that shared their opinions. Participants found opinion-aligned models more trustworthy, competent, warm, and persuasive, corroborating an AI-similarity-attraction hypothesis. In contrast, we observed no or only weak effects of AI personality alignment, with introvert models rated as less trustworthy and competent by introvert participants. These findings highlight opinion alignment as a central dimension of AI user preference, while underscoring the need for a more grounded discussion of the mechanisms and risks of AI personalization.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harms

While demands for change and accountability for harmful AI consequences mount, foreseeing the downstream effects of deploying AI systems remains a challenging task. We developed AHA! (Anticipating Harms of AI), a generative framework to assist AI practitioners and decision-makers in anticipating potential harms and unintended consequences of AI systems prior to development or deployment. Given an AI deployment scenario, AHA! generates descriptions of possible harms for different stakeholders. To do so, AHA! systematically considers the interplay between common problematic AI behaviors as well as their potential impacts on different stakeholders, and narrates these conditions through vignettes. These vignettes are then filled in with descriptions of possible harms by prompting crowd workers and large language models. By examining 4113 harms surfaced by AHA! for five different AI deployment scenarios, we found that AHA! generates meaningful examples of harms, with different problematic AI behaviors resulting in different types of harms. Prompting both crowds and a large language model with the vignettes resulted in more diverse examples of harms than those generated by either the crowd or the model alone. To gauge AHA!'s potential practical utility, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with responsible AI professionals (N=9). Participants found AHA!'s systematic approach to surfacing harms important for ethical reflection and discovered meaningful stakeholders and harms they believed they would not have thought of otherwise. Participants, however, differed in their opinions about whether AHA! should be used upfront or as a secondary-check and noted that AHA! may shift harm anticipation from an ideation problem to a potentially demanding review problem. Drawing on our results, we discuss design implications of building tools to help practitioners envision possible harms.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Fears about AI-mediated communication are grounded in different expectations for one's own versus others' use

The rapid development of AI-mediated communication technologies (AICTs), which are digital tools that use AI to augment interpersonal messages, has raised concerns about the future of interpersonal trust and prompted discussions about disclosure and uptake. This paper contributes to this discussion by assessing perceptions about the acceptability and use of open and secret AICTs for oneself and others. In two studies with representative samples (UK: N=477, US: N=765), we found that secret AICT use is deemed less acceptable than open AICT use, people tend to overestimate others' AICT use, and people expect others to use AICTs irresponsibly. Thus, we raise concerns about the potential for misperceptions and different expectations for others to drive self-fulfilling pessimistic outlooks about AI-mediated communication.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Effects of Algorithmic Trend Promotion: Evidence from Coordinated Campaigns in Twitter's Trending Topics

In addition to more personalized content feeds, some leading social media platforms give a prominent role to content that is more widely popular. On Twitter, "trending topics" identify popular topics of conversation on the platform, thereby promoting popular content which users might not have otherwise seen through their network. Hence, "trending topics" potentially play important roles in influencing the topics users engage with on a particular day. Using two carefully constructed data sets from India and Turkey, we study the effects of a hashtag appearing on the trending topics page on the number of tweets produced with that hashtag. We specifically aim to answer the question: How many new tweeting using that hashtag appear because a hashtag is labeled as trending? We distinguish the effects of the trending topics page from network exposure and find there is a statistically significant, but modest, return to a hashtag being featured on trending topics. Analysis of the types of users impacted by trending topics shows that the feature helps less popular and new users to discover and spread content outside their network, which they otherwise might not have been able to do.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed

Human communication is increasingly intermixed with language generated by AI. Across chat, email, and social media, AI systems suggest words, complete sentences, or produce entire conversations. AI-generated language is often not identified as such but presented as language written by humans, raising concerns about novel forms of deception and manipulation. Here, we study how humans discern whether verbal self-presentations, one of the most personal and consequential forms of language, were generated by AI. In six experiments, participants (N = 4,600) were unable to detect self-presentations generated by state-of-the-art AI language models in professional, hospitality, and dating contexts. A computational analysis of language features shows that human judgments of AI-generated language are hindered by intuitive but flawed heuristics such as associating first-person pronouns, use of contractions, or family topics with human-written language. We experimentally demonstrate that these heuristics make human judgment of AI-generated language predictable and manipulable, allowing AI systems to produce text perceived as "more human than human." We discuss solutions, such as AI accents, to reduce the deceptive potential of language generated by AI, limiting the subversion of human intuition.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Comparing Sentence-Level Suggestions to Message-Level Suggestions in AI-Mediated Communication

Traditionally, writing assistance systems have focused on short or even single-word suggestions. Recently, large language models like GPT-3 have made it possible to generate significantly longer natural-sounding suggestions, offering more advanced assistance opportunities. This study explores the trade-offs between sentence- vs. message-level suggestions for AI-mediated communication. We recruited 120 participants to act as staffers from legislators' offices who often need to respond to large volumes of constituent concerns. Participants were asked to reply to emails with different types of assistance. The results show that participants receiving message-level suggestions responded faster and were more satisfied with the experience, as they mainly edited the suggested drafts. In addition, the texts they wrote were evaluated as more helpful by others. In comparison, participants receiving sentence-level assistance retained a higher sense of agency, but took longer for the task as they needed to plan the flow of their responses and decide when to use suggestions. Our findings have implications for designing task-appropriate communication assistance systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' Views

If large language models like GPT-3 preferably produce a particular point of view, they may influence people's opinions on an unknown scale. This study investigates whether a language-model-powered writing assistant that generates some opinions more often than others impacts what users write - and what they think. In an online experiment, we asked participants (N=1,506) to write a post discussing whether social media is good for society. Treatment group participants used a language-model-powered writing assistant configured to argue that social media is good or bad for society. Participants then completed a social media attitude survey, and independent judges (N=500) evaluated the opinions expressed in their writing. Using the opinionated language model affected the opinions expressed in participants' writing and shifted their opinions in the subsequent attitude survey. We discuss the wider implications of our results and argue that the opinions built into AI language technologies need to be monitored and engineered more carefully.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI

Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible artificial intelligence technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups: a representative sample of the US population (N=743), a sample of crowdworkers (N=755), and a sample of AI practitioners (N=175). Our results empirically confirm a common concern: AI practitioners' value priorities differ from those of the general public. Compared to the US-representative sample, AI practitioners appear to consider responsible AI values as less important and emphasize a different set of values. In contrast, self-identified women and black respondents found responsible AI values more important than other groups. Surprisingly, more liberal-leaning participants, rather than participants reporting experiences with discrimination, were more likely to prioritize fairness than other groups. Our findings highlight the importance of paying attention to who gets to define responsible AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Trend Alert: How a Cross-Platform Organization Manipulated Twitter Trends in the Indian General Election

Political organizations worldwide keep innovating their use of social media technologies. In the 2019 Indian general election, organizers used a network of WhatsApp groups to manipulate Twitter trends through coordinated mass postings. We joined 600 WhatsApp groups that support the Bharatiya Janata Party, the right-wing party that won the general election, to investigate these campaigns. We found evidence of 75 hashtag manipulation campaigns in the form of mobilization messages with lists of pre-written tweets. Building on this evidence, we estimate the campaigns' size, describe their organization and determine whether they succeeded in creating controlled social media narratives. Our findings show that the campaigns produced hundreds of nationwide Twitter trends throughout the election. Centrally controlled but voluntary in participation, this hybrid configuration of technologies and organizational strategies shows how profoundly online tools transform campaign politics. Trend alerts complicate the debates over the legitimate use of digital tools for political participation and may have provided a blueprint for participatory media manipulation by a party with popular support.

cs.SI↗