arXiv subjects

Mor Naaman

Publications and source records attributed to Mor Naaman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Lost in Transcription: Subtitle Errors in Automatic Speech Recognition Reduce Speaker and Content Evaluations

Researchers have demonstrated that Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems perform differently across demographic groups. In this work, we examined how subtitle errors affect evaluations of speakers and their content using a preregistered online experiment (N=207, U.S.-based crowdworkers). Participants watched speakers with various accents deliver a talk in which the subtitles were accurate or error-prone. Our results indicate that error-prone subtitles consistently reduce both speaker and content evaluations for all speakers. We did not see disparate impact between the accent groups, controlling for subtitle quality. Taken together, though, the findings of this short paper imply that speakers with accents for which ASR systems perform poorly are likely to be further penalized by viewers with lower evaluations.

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

Introducing AI to an Online Petition Platform Changed Outputs but not Outcomes

The rapid integration of AI writing tools into online platforms raises critical questions about their impact on content production and outcomes. We leverage a unique natural experiment on Change$.$org, a leading social advocacy platform, to causally investigate the effects of an in-platform ''write with AI'' tool. To understand the impact of the AI integration, we collected 1.5 million petitions and employed a difference-in-differences analysis. Our findings reveal that in-platform AI access significantly altered the lexical features of petitions and increased petition homogeneity, but did not improve petition outcomes. We confirmed the results in a separate analysis of repeat petition writers who wrote petitions before and after introduction of the AI tool. The results suggest that while AI writing tools can profoundly reshape online content, their practical utility for improving desired outcomes may be less beneficial than anticipated, and introduce unintended consequences like content homogenization.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Beyond Community Notes: A Framework for Understanding and Building Crowdsourced Context Systems for Social Media

Social media platforms are increasingly adopting features that display crowdsourced context alongside posts, a technique pioneered by X's Community Notes. These systems -- which we term Crowdsourced Context Systems (CCS) -- have the potential to reshape the information ecosystem as major platforms embrace them as alternatives to professional fact-checking. To understand the features and implications of these systems, we conduct a systematic literature review of existing CCS research (n=56) and analyze real-world CCS implementations. Based on our analysis, we develop a framework with two components. First, we present a theoretical model to conceptualize and define CCS. Second, we identify a design space encompassing six aspects: participation, inputs, curation, presentation, platform treatment, and transparency. We also surface normative implications of different CCS design and implementation choices. Our work integrates theoretical, design, and ethical perspectives to establish a foundation for future human-centered research on Crowdsourced Context Systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Penalizing Transparency? How AI Disclosure and Author Demographics Shape Human and AI Judgments About Writing

As AI integrates in various types of human writing, calls for transparency around AI assistance are growing. However, if transparency operates on uneven ground and certain identity groups bear a heavier cost for being honest, then the burden of openness becomes asymmetrical. This study investigates how AI disclosure statement affects perceptions of writing quality, and whether these effects vary by the author's race and gender. Through a large-scale controlled experiment, both human raters (n = 1,970) and LLM raters (n = 2,520) evaluated a single human-written news article while disclosure statements and author demographics were systematically varied. This approach reflects how both human and algorithmic decisions now influence access to opportunities (e.g., hiring, promotion) and social recognition (e.g., content recommendation algorithms). We find that both human and LLM raters consistently penalize disclosed AI use. However, only LLM raters exhibit demographic interaction effects: they favor articles attributed to women or Black authors when no disclosure is present. But these advantages disappear when AI assistance is revealed. These findings illuminate the complex relationships between AI disclosure and author identity, highlighting disparities between machine and human evaluation patterns.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Examining Human-AI Collaboration for Co-Writing Constructive Comments Online

This paper examines if large language models (LLMs) can help people write constructive comments on divisive social issues due to the difficulty of expressing constructive disagreement online. Through controlled experiments with 600 participants from India and the US, who reviewed and wrote constructive comments on threads related to Islamophobia and homophobia, we observed potential misalignment between how LLMs and humans perceive constructiveness in online comments. While the LLM was more likely to prioritize politeness and balance among contrasting viewpoints when evaluating constructiveness, participants emphasized logic and facts more than the LLM did. Despite these differences, participants rated both LLM-generated and human-AI co-written comments as significantly more constructive than those written independently by humans. Our analysis also revealed that LLM-generated comments integrated significantly more linguistic features of constructiveness compared to human-written comments. When participants used LLMs to refine their comments, the resulting comments were more constructive, more positive, less toxic, and retained the original intent. However, occasionally LLMs distorted people's original views -- especially when their stances were not outright polarizing. Based on these findings, we discuss ethical and design considerations in using LLMs to facilitate constructive discourse online.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

AI Rules? Characterizing Reddit Community Policies Towards AI-Generated Content

How are Reddit communities responding to AI-generated content? We explored this question through a large-scale analysis of subreddit community rules and their change over time. We collected the metadata and community rules for over $300,000$ public subreddits and measured the prevalence of rules governing AI. We labeled subreddits and AI rules according to existing taxonomies from the HCI literature and a new taxonomy we developed specific to AI rules. While rules about AI are still relatively uncommon, the number of subreddits with these rules more than doubled over the course of a year. AI rules are more common in larger subreddits and communities focused on art or celebrity topics, and less common in those focused on social support. These rules often focus on AI images and evoke, as justification, concerns about quality and authenticity. Overall, our findings illustrate the emergence of varied concerns about AI, in different community contexts. Platform designers and HCI researchers should heed these concerns if they hope to encourage community self-determination in the age of generative AI. We make our datasets public to enable future large-scale studies of community self-governance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Examining the Prevalence and Dynamics of AI-Generated Media in Art Subreddits

Broadly accessible generative AI models like Dall-E have made it possible for anyone to create compelling visual art. In online communities, the introduction of AI-generated content (AIGC) may impact social dynamics, for example causing changes in who is posting content, or shifting the norms or the discussions around the posted content if posts are suspected of being generated by AI. We take steps towards examining the potential impact of AIGC on art-related communities on Reddit. We distinguish between communities that disallow AI content and those without such a direct policy. We look at image-based posts in these communities where the author transparently shares that the image was created by AI, and at comments in these communities that suspect or accuse authors of using generative AI. We find that AI posts (and accusations) have played a surprisingly small part in these communities through the end of 2023, accounting for fewer than 0.5% of the image-based posts. However, even as the absolute number of author-labeled AI posts dwindles over time, accusations of AI use remain more persistent. We show that AI content is more readily used by newcomers and may help increase participation if it aligns with community rules. However, the tone of comments suspecting AI use by others has become more negative over time, especially in communities that do not have explicit rules about AI. Overall, the results show the changing norms and interactions around AIGC in online communities designated for creativity.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Generative AI and Perceptual Harms: Who's Suspected of using LLMs?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into a variety of writing tasks. While these tools can help people by generating ideas or producing higher quality work, like many other AI tools they may risk causing a variety of harms, disproportionately burdening historically marginalized groups. In this work, we introduce and evaluate perceptual harm, a term for the harm caused to users when others perceive or suspect them of using AI. We examined perceptual harms in three online experiments, each of which entailed human participants evaluating the profiles for fictional freelance writers. We asked participants whether they suspected the freelancers of using AI, the quality of their writing, and whether they should be hired. We found some support for perceptual harms against for certain demographic groups, but that perceptions of AI use negatively impacted writing evaluations and hiring outcomes across the board.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

AI Suggestions Homogenize Writing Toward Western Styles and Diminish Cultural Nuances

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into everyday products and services, such as coding tools and writing assistants. As these embedded AI applications are deployed globally, there is a growing concern that the AI models underlying these applications prioritize Western values. This paper investigates what happens when a Western-centric AI model provides writing suggestions to users from a different cultural background. We conducted a cross-cultural controlled experiment with 118 participants from India and the United States who completed culturally grounded writing tasks with and without AI suggestions. Our analysis reveals that AI provided greater efficiency gains for Americans compared to Indians. Moreover, AI suggestions led Indian participants to adopt Western writing styles, altering not just what is written but also how it is written. These findings show that Western-centric AI models homogenize writing toward Western norms, diminishing nuances that differentiate cultural expression.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

The Role of Inclusion, Control, and Ownership in Workplace AI-Mediated Communication

Given large language models' (LLMs) increasing integration into workplace software, it is important to examine how biases in the models may impact workers. For example, stylistic biases in the language suggested by LLMs may cause feelings of alienation and result in increased labor for individuals or groups whose style does not match. We examine how such writer-style bias impacts inclusion, control, and ownership over the work when co-writing with LLMs. In an online experiment, participants wrote hypothetical job promotion requests using either hesitant or self-assured autocomplete suggestions from an LLM and reported their subsequent perceptions. We found that the style of the AI model did not impact perceived inclusion. However, individuals with higher perceived inclusion did perceive greater agency and ownership, an effect more strongly impacting participants of minoritized genders. Feelings of inclusion mitigated a loss of control and agency when accepting more AI suggestions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

"There Has To Be a Lot That We're Missing": Moderating AI-Generated Content on Reddit

Generative AI is altering how we work, learn, communicate, and participate in online communities. How might online communities be changed by generative AI? To start addressing this question, we focused on online community moderators' experiences with AI-generated content (AIGC). We performed fifteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews with moderators of Reddit communities that restrict the use of AIGC. Our study finds that rules about AIGC are motivated by concerns about content quality, social dynamics, and governance challenges. Moderators fear that, without such rules, AIGC threatens to reduce their communities' utility and social value. We find that, despite the absence of robust tools for detecting AIGC, moderators were able to somewhat limit the disruption it caused by working with their communities to clarify norms. However, moderators found enforcing AIGC restrictions challenging, as they rely on time-intensive and inaccurate detection heuristics. Our results highlight the importance of supporting community autonomy and self-determination in the face of this sudden technological change, and suggest potential design solutions that may help.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Trustworthiness Evaluations of Search Results: The Impact of Rank and Misinformation

Users rely on search engines for information in critical contexts, such as public health emergencies. Understanding how users evaluate the trustworthiness of search results is therefore essential. Research has identified rank and the presence of misinformation as factors impacting perceptions and click behavior in search. Here, we elaborate on these findings by measuring the effects of rank and misinformation, as well as warning banners, on the perceived trustworthiness of individual results in search. We conducted three online experiments (N=3196) using Covid-19-related queries to address this question. We show that although higher-ranked results are clicked more often, they are not more trusted. We also show that misinformation did not change trust in accurate results below it. However, a warning about unreliable sources backfired, decreasing trust in accurate information but not misinformation. This work addresses concerns about how people evaluate information in search, and illustrates the dangers of generic prevention approaches.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Characterizing Reddit Participation of Users Who Engage in the QAnon Conspiracy Theories

Widespread conspiracy theories may significantly impact our society. This paper focuses on the QAnon conspiracy theory, a consequential conspiracy theory that started on and disseminated successfully through social media. Our work characterizes how Reddit users who have participated in QAnon-focused subreddits engage in activities on the platform, especially outside their own communities. Using a large-scale Reddit moderation action against QAnon-related activities in 2018 as the source, we identified 13,000 users active in the early QAnon communities. We collected the 2.1 million submissions and 10.8 million comments posted by these users across all of Reddit from October 2016 to January 2021. The majority of these users were only active after the emergence of the QAnon Conspiracy theory and decreased in activity after Reddit's 2018 QAnon ban. A qualitative analysis of a sample of 915 subreddits where the "QAnon-enthusiastic" users were especially active shows that they participated in a diverse range of subreddits, often of unrelated topics to QAnon. However, most of the users' submissions were concentrated in subreddits that have sympathetic attitudes towards the conspiracy theory, characterized by discussions that were pro-Trump, or emphasized unconstricted behavior (often anti-establishment and anti-interventionist). Further study of a sample of 1,571 of these submissions indicates that most consist of links from low-quality sources, bringing potential harm to the broader Reddit community. These results point to the likelihood that the activities of early QAnon users on Reddit were dedicated and committed to the conspiracy, providing implications on both platform moderation design and future research.

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

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

Characterizing Alternative Monetization Strategies on YouTube

One of the key emerging roles of the YouTube platform is providing creators the ability to generate revenue from their content and interactions. Alongside tools provided directly by the platform, such as revenue-sharing from advertising, creators co-opt the platform to use a variety of off-platform monetization opportunities. In this work, we focus on studying and characterizing these alternative monetization strategies. Leveraging a large longitudinal YouTube dataset of popular creators, we develop a taxonomy of alternative monetization strategies and a simple methodology to detect their usage automatically. We then proceed to characterize the adoption of these strategies. First, we find that the use of external monetization is expansive and increasingly prevalent, used in 18% of all videos, with 61% of channels using one such strategy at least once. Second, we show that the adoption of these strategies varies substantially among channels of different kinds and popularity, and that channels that establish these alternative revenue streams often become more productive on the platform. Lastly, we investigate how potentially problematic channels -- those that produce Alt-lite, Alt-right, and Manosphere content -- leverage alternative monetization strategies, finding that they employ a more diverse set of such strategies significantly more often than a carefully chosen comparison set of channels. This finding complicates YouTube's role as a gatekeeper, since the practice of excluding policy-violating content from its native on-platform monetization may not be effective. Overall, this work provides an important step toward broadening the understanding of the monetary incentives behind content creation on YouTube.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Stop the [Image] Steal: The Role and Dynamics of Visual Content in the 2020 U.S. Election Misinformation Campaign

Images are powerful. Visual information can attract attention, improve persuasion, trigger stronger emotions, and is easy to share and spread. We examine the characteristics of the popular images shared on Twitter as part of "Stop the Steal", the widespread misinformation campaign during the 2020 U.S. election. We analyze the spread of the forty most popular images shared on Twitter as part of this campaign. Using a coding process, we categorize and label the images according to their type, content, origin, and role, and perform a mixed-method analysis of these images' spread on Twitter. Our results show that popular images include both photographs and text rendered as image. Only very few of these popular images included alleged photographic evidence of fraud; and none of the popular photographs had been manipulated. Most images reached a significant portion of their total spread within several hours from their first appearance, and both popular- and less-popular accounts were involved in various stages of their spread.

cs.SI↗