Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

WeAudit: Scaffolding User Auditors and AI Practitioners in Auditing Generative AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.01397 v4 pith:DRK4LPL3 submitted 2025-01-02 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords auditingpractitionersusersuserweauditsupportuponauditors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

There has been growing interest from both practitioners and researchers in engaging end users in AI auditing, to draw upon users' unique knowledge and lived experiences. However, we know little about how to effectively scaffold end users in auditing in ways that can generate actionable insights for AI practitioners. Through formative studies with both users and AI practitioners, we first identified a set of design goals to support user-engaged AI auditing. We then developed WeAudit, a workflow and system that supports end users in auditing AI both individually and collectively. We evaluated WeAudit through a three-week user study with user auditors and interviews with industry Generative AI practitioners. Our findings offer insights into how WeAudit supports users in noticing and reflecting upon potential AI harms and in articulating their findings in ways that industry practitioners can act upon. Based on our observations and feedback from both users and practitioners, we identify several opportunities to better support user engagement in AI auditing processes. We discuss implications for future research to support effective and responsible user engagement in AI auditing and red-teaming.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. "I Cannot Write This Because It Violates Our Content Policy": Understanding Content Moderation Policies and User Experiences in Generative AI Products

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GAI tools' content moderation policies are comprehensive in scope but thin on user reporting and appeals, and Reddit users report frequent frustration with opaque moderation decisions.

  2. "GenAI Defaults to Bias!" Gamify AI Literacy Through Reflections on Prompts

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Playing ImaginAItion, a prompt-minimization party game, helped 30 adults recognize GenAI default biases and adjust their prompting strategies, according to pre-post survey coding.

Pith tools