arXiv subjects

Natalia Luka

Publications and source records attributed to Natalia Luka.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Guardrails versus Gatekeepers: Understanding Product Managers' Ethical Decision-Making in Generative AI

What is the role of product managers in the responsible use of generative AI (genAI) in products and everyday work -- and what enables or constrains their ability to take action? Past literature has examined the ways in which organizational policies can become decoupled from practices when incentives for responsible action are misaligned or impeded by profit motives. While the role of engineers and professional ethicists in the context of AI has been examined in detail, the role of product managers -- who are frequently portrayed as "gatekeepers" or critical decision-makers in product teams -- remains unclear. In this paper, we examine what organizational conditions promote responsible use of genAI by product managers by drawing on twenty-five interviews and a global survey of over three hundred respondents in product management-related roles. We find that uncertainty around responsible AI and a sense of diffused responsibility constrain ethical action, while leadership commitment and organizational principles enable ethical action -- making some responsible practices up to fourteen times more likely. Further, we find two sets of actions product managers take to "recouple" ethical commitments and practices. The first includes low-resource, individual actions product managers can implement without explicit organizational incentives. The second includes high-resource, collective actions that require organizational incentives. Our research suggests recoupling ethical policies and practices at the level of product teams requires institutional buy-in and higher level leadership commitment. Nevertheless, we show that individual actors are able to exhibit agency through some meaningful, low resource actions, even in the absence of organizational incentives, though this alone is insufficient to operationalize responsible AI at scale.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures

Debates over open source and openness in artificial intelligence have intensified as policymakers, researchers, and practitioners grapple with how foundation models should be developed and governed to balance innovation, accountability, and public interest. However, there has been limited empirical work examining how diverse stakeholders collectively understand and negotiate responsible openness in AI, particularly through participatory processes that extend beyond industry-led definitions and frameworks. This paper presents findings from a multi-sectoral workshop grounded in futures thinking and participatory design methods. The workshop generated co-created visions of desirable futures and the role of AI, alongside a set of action pathways and a research roadmap focused on responsible open source and openness in AI. This paper makes three key contributions. First, it empirically documents the co-created visions, actions, and research priorities. Second, it identifies four core tensions that emerged as participants translated high-level aspirations into concrete actions, revealing conflicting interpretations of openness regarding its purpose (as an end or a means), its scope (expansion versus meaningful access), and its operation (mandatory versus conditional, sufficient versus dependent on governance and use). These tensions illustrate that responsible openness is not a singular technical solution, but a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities. Third, the paper advances methodological approaches in AI governance by demonstrating how participatory futures methods can surface plural visions, actions, and research priorities that extend beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives, offering empirical insight into how openness, power, and accountability are negotiated in practice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Unlikely Organizers: The Rise of Labor Activism Among Professionals in the U.S. Technology Industry

Tech workers -- professional workers in the technology industry including software engineers, product managers, UX designers, etc. -- are not normally associated with labor activism. Yet, since 2017, we have seen a significant rise in labor actions among this group. Using an original dataset, we demonstrate how, in the case of tech workers, periods of intense workplace social activism preceded later periods of heightened labor activism. Regression analysis confirms that participation in social activism increases the likelihood of labor activism six months to one year later at the same company. This finding extends Fantasia's cultures of solidarity argument to professional workers. We find that organizing emerges out of collective action and ensuing conflict with management: first, tech workers, guided by their professional interest in socially beneficial work, engage in workplace social activism. This generates solidarity among employee-participants but also creates conflict with management and leads to the emergence of labor activism among professionals.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

In Oxford Handbook on AI Governance: The Role of Workers in AI Ethics and Governance

While the role of states, corporations, and international organizations in AI governance has been extensively theorized, the role of workers has received comparatively little attention. This chapter looks at the role that workers play in identifying and mitigating harms from AI technologies. Harms are the causally assessed impacts of technologies. They arise despite technical reliability and are not a result of technical negligence but rather of normative uncertainty around questions of safety and fairness in complex social systems. There is high consensus in the AI ethics community on the benefits of reducing harms but less consensus on mechanisms for determining or addressing harms. This lack of consensus has resulted in a number of collective actions by workers protesting how harms are identified and addressed in their workplace. We theorize the role of workers within AI governance and construct a model of harm reporting processes in AI workplaces. The harm reporting process involves three steps, identification, the governance decision, and the response. Workers draw upon three types of claims to argue for jurisdiction over questions of AI governance, subjection, control over the product of labor, and proximate knowledge of systems. Examining the past decade of AI related worker activism allows us to understand how different types of workers are positioned within a workplace that produces AI systems, how their position informs their claims, and the place of collective action in staking their claims. This chapter argues that workers occupy a unique role in identifying and mitigating harms caused by AI systems.

cs.CY↗