arXiv subjects

Nicholas Vincent

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas Vincent.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

IDP-Bench: Benchmarking ability of LLMs to protect personal information in interdependent privacy contexts

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming widely deployed as personal AI assistants with access to sensitive user data, making privacy a major challenge for their design and evaluation. Prior work focuses mainly on individual-level risks, overlooking \textbf{interdependent privacy (IDP)}--where one person's data may be revealed by others without their knowledge or consent. We address this gap by introducing \textbf{IDP-Bench}: the first LLM benchmark for IDP scenarios, grounded in the Contextual Integrity (CI) framework. We evaluate eight open-source LLMs on their understanding of IDP scenarios across three levels of IDP reasoning using two LLM judges. Results show strong co-ownership recognition (6/8 models exceed 90\%) but persistent weaknesses in identifying CI parameters (information attribute, primary subject) and IDP-specific parameters such as secondary subjects, where 7/8 models score below 74\%. Models also struggle to judge sharing appropriateness (5/8 scoring below 77\%). While the ability to judge the appropriateness of sharing improves with scale, performance tends to decline in smaller models, and prompt sensitivity remains high on IDP-specific questions--highlighting the need for more targeted study of IDP in LLM privacy research. Data \& code available \href{https://github.com/tisl-lab/Interdependent_Privacy_Bench}{here}.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Overreliance in Writing Tasks: Exploring Similarity-Based Measures of AI Influence on Writing and Proposing a Reflective Writing Interface Intervention

As generative AI (GenAI) systems become increasingly proficient at simulating human-like and well-reasoned text, users may attribute authority to AI outputs, shaping how they engage with writing and reasoning tasks. While prior work has raised concerns about AI overreliance, empirical approaches for observing this phenomenon during open-ended writing remain limited. In this paper, we examine how GenAI assistance influences users' interactions with AI suggestions during writing. We report results from a mixed-methods study in which 47 participants completed analysis and synthesis writing tasks with or without AI assistance. We quantify the textual overlap between AI suggestions and participants' writing and analyze participants' reflections. Our results show that AI assistance is associated with patterns of suggestion reuse. Building on these findings, we design and evaluate an interactive writing interface that may support reflection on the usage of the AI suggestions during writing. Evidence from a small follow-up think-aloud study (n = 4) suggests that the interface can increase users' awareness of how AI outputs are incorporated into their writing and may support more conscious engagement with AI assistance. Together, our findings contribute empirical methods for studying AI adoption in writing contexts and demonstrate how interface design can shape user-AI interaction.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Mechanism Plausibility in Generative Agent-Based Modeling

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recent studies investigate their ability to generate different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or alien behavior in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different--drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, explanation requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of 'plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

How Creatives Approach GenAI Image Generation: Tensions Between Structured Guidance, Self-Experimentation, and Creative Autonomy

As generative AI tools increasingly influence creative practice, they raise longstanding HCI questions about how creatives learn complex software and how they can be better supported. We conducted an interview study with artists and hobbyists (n=8) and a follow-up survey (n=159) to understand how this population approaches and seeks guidance for GenAI image tools. We found that creatives commonly use either self-experimentation or tutorials to explore GenAI tools, yet many struggle with confusing AI terminology. To gain further insight into creatives' learning experiences, we developed a research probe to elicit creatives' perceptions of structured guidance. Our user study with 17 creatives revealed that, even when creatives described the guidance as helpful for understanding AI, many still preferred self-experimentation, feeling that guidance could limit their creativity. Our findings highlight a central tension in supporting AI literacy for creatives: balancing guidance and promoting literacy while preserving creative freedom.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Tracing Everyday AI Literacy Discussions at Scale: How Online Creative Communities Make Sense of Generative AI

Developing AI literacy is increasingly urgent as generative AI reshapes creative practice. Yet most AI literacy frameworks are top-down and expert-driven, overlooking how literacy emerges organically in creative communities. To address this gap, we performed a large-scale analysis of 122k Reddit conversations from 80 creative-oriented subreddits over a three-year period. Our analysis identified four consistent themes in AI literacy-related discussions, and we further traced how discourse shifted alongside major AI events. Surprisingly, creators primarily frame AI literacy around how to use tools effectively, foregrounding practice and task skills, while discussions of AI capabilities and ethics surge only around high-profile events. Our findings suggest that AI literacy is dynamic, practice-driven, and event-responsive rather than static or purely conceptual. This study provides insights for researchers, designers, and policymakers to develop learning resources, community support, and policies that better promote AI literacy in creative communities.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Sync or Sink: Bounds on Algorithmic Collective Action with Noise and Multiple Groups

Collective action against algorithmic systems provides an opportunity for a small group of individuals to strategically manipulate their data to get specific outcomes, from classification to recommendation models. This effectiveness will invite more growth of this type of coordinated actions, both in the size and the number of distinct collectives. With a small group, however, coordination is key. Currently, there is no formal analysis of how coordination challenges within a collective can impact downstream outcomes, or how multiple collectives may affect each other's success. In this work, we aim to provide guarantees on the success of collective action in the presence of both coordination noise and multiple groups. Our insight is that data generated by either multiple collectives or by coordination noise can be viewed as originating from multiple data distributions. Using this framing, we derive bounds on the success of collective action. We conduct experiments to study the effects of noise on collective action. We find that sufficiently high levels of noise can reduce the success of collective action. In certain scenarios, large noise can sink a collective success rate from $100\%$ to just under $60\%$. We identify potential trade-offs between collective size and coordination noise; for example, a collective that is twice as big but with four times more noise experiencing worse outcomes than the smaller, more coordinated one. This work highlights the importance of understanding nuanced dynamics of strategic behavior in algorithmic systems.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2025

Open WebUI: An Open, Extensible, and Usable Interface for AI Interaction

While LLMs enable a range of AI applications, interacting with multiple models and customizing workflows can be challenging, and existing LLM interfaces offer limited support for collaborative extension or real-world evaluation. In this work, we present an interface toolkit for LLMs designed to be open (open-source and local), extensible (plugin support and users can interact with multiple models), and usable. The extensibility is enabled through a two-pronged plugin architecture and a community platform for sharing, importing, and adapting extensions. To evaluate the system, we analyzed organic engagement through social platforms, conducted a user survey, and provided notable examples of the toolkit in the wild. Through studying how users engage with and extend the toolkit, we show how extensible, open LLM interfaces provide both functional and social value, and highlight opportunities for future HCI work on designing LLM toolkit platforms and shaping local LLM-user interaction.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

An Audit and Analysis of LLM-Assisted Health Misinformation Jailbreaks Against LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a double-edged sword capable of generating harmful misinformation -- inadvertently, or when prompted by "jailbreak" attacks that attempt to produce malicious outputs. LLMs could, with additional research, be used to detect and prevent the spread of misinformation. In this paper, we investigate the efficacy and characteristics of LLM-produced jailbreak attacks that cause other models to produce harmful medical misinformation. We also study how misinformation generated by jailbroken LLMs compares to typical misinformation found on social media, and how effectively it can be detected using standard machine learning approaches. Specifically, we closely examine 109 distinct attacks against three target LLMs and compare the attack prompts to in-the-wild health-related LLM queries. We also examine the resulting jailbreak responses, comparing the generated misinformation to health-related misinformation on Reddit. Our findings add more evidence that LLMs can be effectively used to detect misinformation from both other LLMs and from people, and support a body of work suggesting that with careful design, LLMs can contribute to a healthier overall information ecosystem.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

If open source is to win, it must go public

Open source projects have made incredible progress in producing widely usable machine learning models and systems, but open source alone will face challenges in fully democratizing access to AI. Unlike previous generations of open source software, open source and open weight AI models require substantial resources to activate and maintain -- e.g., data and compute for pre-training, post-training, and deployment -- which only a few actors can currently provide. This position paper argues that open source AI must be complemented by public AI: infrastructure and institutions that ensure models are accessible, sustainable, and governed in the public interest. To achieve the full promise of AI models as prosocial public goods, we need to build public infrastructure to power and deliver open source software and models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power Concentration

This position paper argues that there is an urgent need to restructure markets for the information that goes into AI systems. Specifically, producers of information goods (such as journalists, researchers, and creative professionals) need to be able to collectively bargain with AI product builders in order to receive reasonable terms and a sustainable return on the informational value they contribute. We argue that without increased market coordination or collective bargaining on the side of these primary information producers, AI will exacerbate a large-scale "information market failure" that will lead not only to undesirable concentration of capital, but also to a potential "ecological collapse" in the informational commons. On the other hand, collective bargaining in the information economy can create market frictions and aligned incentives necessary for a pro-social, sustainable AI future. We provide concrete actions that can be taken to support a coalition-based approach to achieve this goal. For example, researchers and developers can establish technical mechanisms such as federated data management tools and explainable data value estimations, to inform and facilitate collective bargaining in the information economy. Additionally, regulatory and policy interventions may be introduced to support trusted data intermediary organizations representing guilds or syndicates of information producers.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

WikiGap: Promoting Epistemic Equity by Surfacing Knowledge Gaps Between English Wikipedia and other Language Editions

With more than 11 times as many pageviews as the next largest edition, English Wikipedia dominates global knowledge access relative to other language editions. Readers are prone to assuming English Wikipedia as a superset of all language editions, leading many to prefer it even when their primary language is not English. Other language editions, however, comprise complementary facts rooted in their respective cultures and media environments, which are marginalized in English Wikipedia. While Wikipedia's user interface enables switching between language editions through its Interlanguage Link (ILL) system, it does not reveal to readers that other language editions contain valuable, complementary information. We present WikiGap, a system that surfaces complementary facts sourced from other Wikipedias within the English Wikipedia interface. Specifically, by combining a recent multilingual information-gap discovery method with a user-centered design, WikiGap enables access to complementary information from French, Russian, and Chinese Wikipedia. In a mixed-methods study (n=21), WikiGap significantly improved fact-finding accuracy, reduced task time, and received a 32-point higher usability score relative to Wikipedia's current ILL-based navigation system. Participants reported increased awareness of the availability of complementary information in non-English editions and reconsidered the completeness of English Wikipedia. WikiGap thus paves the way for improved epistemic equity across language editions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Algorithmic Collective Action with Two Collectives

Given that data-dependent algorithmic systems have become impactful in more domains of life, the need for individuals to promote their own interests and hold algorithms accountable has grown. To have meaningful influence, individuals must band together to engage in collective action. Groups that engage in such algorithmic collective action are likely to vary in size, membership characteristics, and crucially, objectives. In this work, we introduce a first of a kind framework for studying collective action with two or more collectives that strategically behave to manipulate data-driven systems. With more than one collective acting on a system, unexpected interactions may occur. We use this framework to conduct experiments with language model-based classifiers and recommender systems where two collectives each attempt to achieve their own individual objectives. We examine how differing objectives, strategies, sizes, and homogeneity can impact a collective's efficacy. We find that the unintentional interactions between collectives can be quite significant; a collective acting in isolation may be able to achieve their objective (e.g., improve classification outcomes for themselves or promote a particular item), but when a second collective acts simultaneously, the efficacy of the first group drops by as much as $75\%$. We find that, in the recommender system context, neither fully heterogeneous nor fully homogeneous collectives stand out as most efficacious and that heterogeneity's impact is secondary compared to collective size. Our results signal the need for more transparency in both the underlying algorithmic models and the different behaviors individuals or collectives may take on these systems. This approach also allows collectives to hold algorithmic system developers accountable and provides a framework for people to actively use their own data to promote their own interests.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

AI for Just Work: Constructing Diverse Imaginations of AI beyond "Replacing Humans"

"why" we develop AI. Lacking critical reflections on the general visions and purposes of AI may make the community vulnerable to manipulation. In this position paper, we explore the "why" question of AI. We denote answers to the "why" question the imaginations of AI, which depict our general visions, frames, and mindsets for the prospects of AI. We identify that the prevailing vision in the AI community is largely a monoculture that emphasizes objectives such as replacing humans and improving productivity. Our critical examination of this mainstream imagination highlights its underpinning and potentially unjust assumptions. We then call to diversify our collective imaginations of AI, embedding ethical assumptions from the outset in the imaginations of AI. To facilitate the community's pursuit of diverse imaginations, we demonstrate one process for constructing a new imagination of "AI for just work," and showcase its application in the medical image synthesis task to make it more ethical. We hope this work will help the AI community to open critical dialogues with civil society on the visions and purposes of AI, and inspire more technical works and advocacy in pursuit of diverse and ethical imaginations to restore the value of AI for the public good.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosure

The rapid scaling of AI has spurred a growing emphasis on ethical considerations in both development and practice. This has led to the formulation of increasingly sophisticated model auditing and reporting requirements, as well as governance frameworks to mitigate potential risks to individuals and society. At this critical juncture, we review the practical challenges of promoting responsible AI and transparency in informal sectors like OSS that support vital infrastructure and see widespread use. We focus on how model performance evaluation may inform or inhibit probing of model limitations, biases, and other risks. Our controlled analysis of 7903 Hugging Face projects found that risk documentation is strongly associated with evaluation practices. Yet, submissions (N=789) from the platform's most popular competitive leaderboard showed less accountability among high performers. Our findings can inform AI providers and legal scholars in designing interventions and policies that preserve open-source innovation while incentivizing ethical uptake.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Push and Pull: A Framework for Measuring Attentional Agency on Digital Platforms

We propose a framework for measuring attentional agency, which we define as a user's ability to allocate attention according to their own desires, goals, and intentions on digital platforms that use statistical learning to prioritize informational content. Such platforms extend people's limited powers of attention by extrapolating their preferences to large collections of previously unconsidered informational objects. However, platforms typically also allow users to influence the attention of other users in various ways. We introduce a formal framework for measuring how much a given platform empowers each user to both pull information into their own attention and push information into the attention of others. We also use these definitions to clarify the implications of generative foundation models and other recent advances in AI for the structure and efficiency of digital platforms. We conclude with a set of possible strategies for better understanding and reshaping attentional agency online.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

A Canary in the AI Coal Mine: American Jews May Be Disproportionately Harmed by Intellectual Property Dispossession in Large Language Model Training

Systemic property dispossession from minority groups has often been carried out in the name of technological progress. In this paper, we identify evidence that the current paradigm of large language models (LLMs) likely continues this long history. Examining common LLM training datasets, we find that a disproportionate amount of content authored by Jewish Americans is used for training without their consent. The degree of over-representation ranges from around 2x to around 6.5x. Given that LLMs may substitute for the paid labor of those who produced their training data, they have the potential to cause even more substantial and disproportionate economic harm to Jewish Americans in the coming years. This paper focuses on Jewish Americans as a case study, but it is probable that other minority communities (e.g., Asian Americans, Hindu Americans) may be similarly affected and, most importantly, the results should likely be interpreted as a "canary in the coal mine" that highlights deep structural concerns about the current LLM paradigm whose harms could soon affect nearly everyone. We discuss the implications of these results for the policymakers thinking about how to regulate LLMs as well as for those in the AI field who are working to advance LLMs. Our findings stress the importance of working together towards alternative LLM paradigms that avoid both disparate impacts and widespread societal harms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

An Alternative to Regulation: The Case for Public AI

Can governments build AI? In this paper, we describe an ongoing effort to develop ``public AI'' -- publicly accessible AI models funded, provisioned, and governed by governments or other public bodies. Public AI presents both an alternative and a complement to standard regulatory approaches to AI, but it also suggests new technical and policy challenges. We present a roadmap for how the ML research community can help shape this initiative and support its implementation, and how public AI can complement other responsible AI initiatives.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

The Dimensions of Data Labor: A Road Map for Researchers, Activists, and Policymakers to Empower Data Producers

Many recent technological advances (e.g. ChatGPT and search engines) are possible only because of massive amounts of user-generated data produced through user interactions with computing systems or scraped from the web (e.g. behavior logs, user-generated content, and artwork). However, data producers have little say in what data is captured, how it is used, or who it benefits. Organizations with the ability to access and process this data, e.g. OpenAI and Google, possess immense power in shaping the technology landscape. By synthesizing related literature that reconceptualizes the production of data for computing as ``data labor'', we outline opportunities for researchers, policymakers, and activists to empower data producers in their relationship with tech companies, e.g advocating for transparency about data reuse, creating feedback channels between data producers and companies, and potentially developing mechanisms to share data's revenue more broadly. In doing so, we characterize data labor with six important dimensions - legibility, end-use awareness, collaboration requirement, openness, replaceability, and livelihood overlap - based on the parallels between data labor and various other types of labor in the computing literature.

cs.CY↗