The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2405.10632 · v7 · pith:QAZPHQC5 · submitted 2024-05-17 · cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.HC

Towards interactive evaluations for interaction harms in human-AI systems

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:QAZPHQC5record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC
keywords interactionevaluationevaluationsharmsinteractivemethodssystemsapproaches
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Current AI evaluation methods, which rely on static, model-only tests, fail to account for harms that emerge through sustained human-AI interaction. As AI systems proliferate and are increasingly integrated into real-world applications, this disconnect between evaluation approaches and actual usage becomes more significant. In this paper, we propose a shift towards evaluation based on \textit{interactional ethics}, which focuses on \textit{interaction harms} - issues like inappropriate parasocial relationships, social manipulation, and cognitive overreliance that develop over time through repeated interaction, rather than through isolated outputs. First, we discuss the limitations of current evaluation methods, which (1) are static, (2) assume a universal user experience, and (3) have limited construct validity. Drawing on research from human-computer interaction, natural language processing, and the social sciences, we present practical principles for designing interactive evaluations. These include ecologically valid interaction scenarios, human impact metrics, and diverse human participation approaches. Finally, we explore implementation challenges and open research questions for researchers, practitioners, and regulators aiming to integrate interactive evaluations into AI governance frameworks. This work lays the groundwork for developing more effective evaluation methods that better capture the complex dynamics between humans and AI systems.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild

    cs.SE 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    Qualitative study of 19 practitioners reveals ten LLM product evaluation practices and introduces the results-actionability gap as a key barrier to turning findings into improvements.

  2. Benchmarking Misuse Mitigation Against Covert Adversaries

    cs.CR 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Develops the BSD data generation pipeline and two new datasets to evaluate decomposition attacks as effective misuse enablers and stateful defenses as a countermeasure in language model safety.

  3. Inform, Coach, Relate, Listen: Auditing LLM Caregiving Support Roles

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM support roles in Alzheimer's caregiving queries systematically alter interactional risk prevalence and composition, with directive roles rated higher in quality despite elevated risks.

  4. Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    The paper consolidates risks of overreliance on LLMs, identifies gaps in current measurement approaches, and proposes mitigation strategies to keep AI as a human-compatible thought partner.