Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Campus AI vs Commercial AI: A Late-Breaking Study on How LLM As-A-Service Customizations Shape Trust and Usage Patterns

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that user-visible LLM customizations—branding, interface, warnings, token display—act as trust cues that reshape trust, caution, privacy perception, and usage compared with commercial ChatGPT.

desk verdict A clear, honest design prequel for a field study on how university-branded LLM customizations affect trust—worth engaging as a proposal, but the planned comparison currently cannot isolate the branding effect from several substantive system differences. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10490 v1 pith:FZQ3VGUM submitted 2025-05-15 cs.CY

Leon Hannig , Annika Bush , Meltem Aksoy , Steffen Becker , Greta Ontrup This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords LLMasaservicecustomizationtrustcueshallucinationsuniversityAIsustainableusetechnologyacceptancefieldstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that the visible, user-facing choices an organization makes when deploying an LLM-as-a-Service system—branding, layout, warnings, token displays—change how much people trust and how they use the system, even when the underlying model is unchanged. It proposes that these customizations act as trust cues that users read as signals of the system's capability and the organization's intentions. The authors back this with six testable hypotheses comparing a university's customized ChatGPT-based chatbot with commercial ChatGPT, and with a planned field-study survey. Since this is a late-breaking prequel, no empirical results are yet reported; the contribution is the argument, the hypotheses, and the measurement plan. If the argument holds, organizations can shape AI adoption, caution, privacy perception, and sustainability behavior through interface choices rather than model changes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the trust cue: any information element a user can use to make a trust assessment about an agent. The paper argues that user-salient LLMaaS customizations—university logo, corporate design, hallucination warnings, and token-percentage display—function as trust cues that map onto the process and purpose dimensions of trust in automation. The planned field study operationalizes this by asking the same participants to rate the customized chatbot and commercial ChatGPT on parallel items measuring trust, hallucination caution, privacy concern, and sustainability behavior, with organizational trust as a moderator.

What would settle it

A randomized experiment in which otherwise identical LLM responses are presented to users under two conditions—one with university branding and warning text, one without—would settle the claim: if trust, verification behavior, and reported hallucination rates do not differ between conditions, the central cue argument is falsified. The planned non-random field comparison cannot distinguish branding from the other feature differences.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that end users interpret customizations of LLMs as evidence about the system's capabilities, goals, and inner workings, even when those customizations, like corporate branding, do not affect functionality. From this, the authors derive six predictions: users will trust the customized university chatbot more than ChatGPT (H1); this effect is stronger when users trust the university itself (H2); users will behave less cautiously about hallucinations and will report encountering fewer of them (H3 and H4); users will feel greater privacy with the customized system (H5); and users will prompt more resource-efficiently and think more about sustainability when token usage is displayed (H6). The paper presents this as a research program rather than a result, positioning the present work as a design and hypothesis paper for a planned field study at a German university.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison assumes the university's chatbot and commercial ChatGPT differ only in the user-visible customizations under study; in fact they also differ in network access, available models, output randomness, and token display, any of which could independently influence trust and usage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Universities can raise initial trust and adoption of their AI services through branding and interface choices without improving the model itself.
  • Visible institutional branding may reduce users' critical checking, leading to overtrust and more uncorrected hallucinated content.
  • Displaying token usage as a percentage could nudge users toward more economical prompting, supporting sustainability goals.
  • Privacy perceptions can be raised by customization even when data handling is unchanged, which may mask real privacy tradeoffs.
  • The effect of customization on trust depends on pre-existing organizational trust, so institutions with weaker reputations may not benefit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If branding alone moves trust, the same cue mechanism should transfer to other branded as-a-service AI deployments, such as corporate and government chatbots, though the paper does not test this.
  • The cleanest test of the core claim would be a randomized A/B comparison of two otherwise identical chatbot versions differing only in branding and warning placement; the planned field comparison includes additional differences, such as access rules, available models, output randomness, and token display, that could themselves affect trust and usage.
  • Hallucination caution can be measured behaviorally in usage logs, for example through clicks on verification or source links, rather than only by self-report; the current survey design relies on self-report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a 'late-breaking' study-design paper. It argues that user-salient customizations of LLM-as-a-Service systems—such as corporate branding and interface changes—can influence end users' trust and usage, even when the customizations have no functional impact. The authors derive six hypotheses (H1–H6) from literature on trust, hallucinations, privacy, and sustainable AI use, and describe a planned cross-sectional field study at a German university that compares the institution's customized ChatGPT-based LLMaaS with commercial ChatGPT. The paper presents no empirical data; its stated purpose is to stimulate discussion and obtain peer feedback on the design.

Significance. The paper's contribution is a structured taxonomy of LLMaaS customizations (Table 1) and a set of theory-derived hypotheses linking customized identity to trust and behavior. If the planned study were cleanly able to isolate branding/interface effects, the results could inform organizational AI adoption. The authors are also transparent that this is a prequel. However, the test they propose is confounded by substantive system differences, so the central claim is not directly estimable from the planned comparison. The intended contribution therefore needs substantial design work rather than minor polishing.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Table 2] The statement that 'customizations regarding the data and model were kept to a minimum' is contradicted by the table, which lists temperature fixed to 0, access to multiple models, DALL-E image generation, GDPR-compliant processing within the EU, VPN-only access, token usage displayed as a percentage, and formal training materials. These are substantive differences in model behavior, privacy guarantees, and functionality. Any observed differences in trust, caution, privacy perception, or resource-conscious prompting between the campus system and ChatGPT could be driven by these factors rather than by corporate branding or interface design. The planned observational comparison cannot isolate the user-salient customizations that are the paper's central independent variable. Please add explicit measurement or statistical control of these confounds (e.g., perceived data governance, model awareness, feature usage) and discuss the residual attribution threat in the design; alternatively, restructure the study as an experimental manipulation of branding/UI with backend features held constant.
  2. [3.3] The newly introduced construct 'AI resource consciousness' (Section 2.5) has no validated measure; the survey uses self-developed items without reported pilot testing, reliability, or validity evidence. The same applies to the self-developed hallucination caution and experienced-hallucination items (Section 3.3). Without at least a pilot psychometric assessment, the planned hypothesis tests (H3, H4, H6) cannot distinguish true effects from measurement artifact. Please include item texts in full and report a validation plan (e.g., factor analysis, internal consistency, test-retest) for the self-developed scales.
  3. [3.1] The sampling plan is underspecified in ways that affect the central comparison. The paper targets N=250 with equal distribution between users of the campus system and ChatGPT, but it does not state how non-users of the campus system are recruited or how self-selection into either group is handled. For participants who use both systems, repeated ratings of both systems create order and carryover effects; no counterbalancing or mixed-model analysis is described. Please provide a concrete recruitment and analysis plan that addresses selection bias and within-subject dependencies.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.5] In the paragraph beginning 'Having explored potential impacts', 'LMMaaS' should be 'LLMaaS'.
  2. [Table 2] In the first row, 'Temperature1set' is missing a space and should read 'Temperature set'.
  3. [References] Reference [46] contains the placeholder URL 'https://example.com/your-thesis-url' and appears to be an incomplete master's thesis citation; it should be completed.
  4. [Section 3.3] Figure 1 is referenced but the text does not describe its content sufficiently; ensure the figure is included and legible in the submission.
  5. [Section 3.3] The text states that survey questions are available in the supplementary material; if the supplementary material is not part of the submission, it must be provided for review.
  6. [Section 2.3] H3 predicts less cautious behavior and H4 predicts fewer experienced hallucinations; because less cautious users may also detect fewer hallucinations, the relationship between the two hypotheses needs clarification, distinguishing non-occurrence from non-detection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper presents testable hypotheses for a planned field study and carries no derivation, fit, or self-citation chain that would make a result equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any quantitative result from inputs. Its central claim, that user-salient LLMaaS customizations influence trust and usage, is explicitly framed as an argument to be tested: the hypotheses H1-H6 are listed as expectations for a large-scale field study, and Section 1 calls the work a 'functional prequel' with the goal to 'refine our research approach through feedback.' No parameter is fitted, no prediction is computed from fitted coefficients, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or prior result by the same authors is invoked; the reference list contains no works authored by Hannig, Bush, Aksoy, Becker, or Ontrup. The theoretical premises are supported by external literature (e.g., de Visser et al. [21], Lee & See [34], Nordheim et al. [44]), and the survey uses published scales (Bøe [12], Wischnewski et al. [63], Hsu & Lin [27]). The strongest validity concern is that Table 2 lists several substantive differences between the university LLMaaS and ChatGPT (temperature 0, multiple models, DALL-E, GDPR data processing, VPN-restricted access, token percentage display, training materials) despite the text saying 'customizations regarding the data and model were kept to a minimum.' This is a potential confound in the planned observational comparison and a threat to construct validity, but it is not circularity: the hypotheses are not defined in terms of the outcome, and no claimed result is assumed by construction. A confounded design is a correctness/external-validity issue, not a self-referential derivation. Therefore the circularity score is 0. The absence of the promised supplementary survey questions is a completeness issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's hypotheses rest on assumptions imported from adjacent HCI, branding, and energy-feedback research. None are established for LLMaaS, and the planned survey design assumes the two compared systems differ only in the customizations of interest. No free parameters are fitted because no data are presented.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Visible user-interface customizations serve as trust cues that end users interpret as signals of system capabilities, purpose, and process.
    Core premise for the research question and H1; supported by general trust-cue literature (de Visser et al. [21], Schlicker et al. [53]) but not yet tested for LLMaaS.
  • domain assumption The university-branded LLMaaS is perceived as a benevolent, familiar provider, increasing trust and privacy perceptions.
    Underlies H1 and H5; extrapolated from logo and familiarity studies [3,37], with no direct evidence for university branding in LLMs.
  • domain assumption The university LLMaaS and ChatGPT are effectively comparable except for the customizations under investigation.
    Needed for causal attribution in the planned field study; Section 3.2 Table 2 shows additional technical and access differences that could confound comparisons.
  • domain assumption Self-reported hallucination experiences and verification behaviors accurately reflect actual hallucinations and caution.
    H3 and H4 rely on self-developed survey items based on Christensen et al. [18]; no validation data are provided.
  • domain assumption Displaying token usage as a percentage increases resource-efficient prompting and sustainability awareness.
    Underlies H6; transferred from energy feedback studies [49,52] to LLM interfaces without prior LLM-specific evidence.
invented entities (1)
  • AI resource consciousness
    purpose: Names the proposed effect of token visibility on sustainable prompting behavior (H6).
    Introduced in Section 2.5 with no validated measurement; the survey uses two self-developed items, so the construct has no external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Campus AI vs Commercial AI: A Late-Breaking Study on How LLM As-A-Service Customizations Shape Trust and Usage Patterns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZQ3VGUM

@misc{pith2026250510490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Campus AI vs Commercial AI: A Late-Breaking Study on How LLM As-A-Service Customizations Shape Trust and Usage Patterns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZQ3VGUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10490}
}
read the original abstract

As the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) by students, lecturers and researchers becomes more prevalent, universities - like other organizations - are pressed to develop coherent AI strategies. LLMs as-a-Service (LLMaaS) offer accessible pre-trained models, customizable to specific (business) needs. While most studies prioritize data, model, or infrastructure adaptations (e.g., model fine-tuning), we focus on user-salient customizations, like interface changes and corporate branding, which we argue influence users' trust and usage patterns. This study serves as a functional prequel to a large-scale field study in which we examine how students and employees at a German university perceive and use their institution's customized LLMaaS compared to ChatGPT. The goals of this prequel are to stimulate discussions on psychological effects of LLMaaS customizations and refine our research approach through feedback. Our forthcoming findings will deepen the understanding of trust dynamics in LLMs, providing practical guidance for organizations considering LLMaaS deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our survey. The expected completion time is 15 minutes or less. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    2024.Evaluating Generative AI Literacy among HR Personnel to Develop a Framework for an Internal GPT

    Ira Aurora Paavola. 2024.Evaluating Generative AI Literacy among HR Personnel to Develop a Framework for an Internal GPT. Master’s Thesis. Tampere University, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences. https://example.com/your-thesis-url A Late-Breaking Study on How LLM As-A-Service Customizations Shape Trust and Usage Patterns 11

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. 2016. Deep Learning with Differential Privacy. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 308–318

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    A. S. Abdelhafiz, A. Ali, A. M. Maaly, H. H. Ziady, E. A. Sultan, and M. A. Mahgoub. 2024. Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitude of Researchers Towards Using ChatGPT in Research.Journal of Medical Systems48, 1 (Feb 2024), 26. doi:10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10916-024-02044-4 2024

  4. [3]

    Alarcon, Joseph B

    Gene M. Alarcon, Joseph B. Lyons, and James C. Christensen. 2016. The effect of propensity to trust and familiarity on perceptions of trustworthiness over time.Personality and Individual Differences94 (2016), 309–315. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.031 2016

  5. [4]

    Fahad Aljamaan, Majed Temsah, Ibrahim Altamimi, Abdulrahman Al-Eyadhy, Ammar Jamal, Khalid Alhasan, Tariq Mesallam, Mohammed Farahat, and Khalid Malki. 2024. Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study.JMIR Medical Informatics12 (2024), e54345. doi:10.2196/54345

    doi:10.2196/54345 2024

  6. [5]

    Amani, L

    S. Amani, L. White, T. Balart, L. Arora, K. J. Shryock, K. Brumbelow, and K. L. Watson. 2023. Generative AI Perceptions: A Survey to Measure the Perceptions of Faculty, Staff, and Students on Generative AI Tools in Academia.ArXiv(2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14415 arXiv preprint

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Paul Ashley, Satoshi Hada, Günter Karjoth, and Matthias Schunter. 2002. E-P3P privacy policies and privacy authorization. InProceedings of the 2002 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society(Washington, DC)(WPES ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 103–109. doi:10.1145/644527.644538

    work page arXiv 2002

  8. [7]

    Agathe Balayn, Mireia Yurrita, Fanny Rancourt, Fabio Casati, and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2024. An Empirical Exploration of Trust Dynamics in LLM Supply Chains. arXiv:2405.16310 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16310

    arXiv 2024

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Sourav Banerjee, Ayushi Agarwal, and Saloni Singla. 2024. LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This. arXiv:2409.05746 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05746

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Bhaskar, P

    P. Bhaskar, P. Misra, and G. Chopra. 2024. Shall I use ChatGPT? A study on perceived trust and perceived risk towards ChatGPT usage by teachers at higher education institutions.International Journal of Information and Learning Technology41, 4 (2024), 428–447. doi:10.1108/IJILT...

    2024 doi

  3. [10]

    Wasja Brunotte, Alexander Specht, Larissa Chazette, and Kurt Schneider. 2023. Privacy explanations – A means to end-user trust.Journal of Systems and Software195 (2023), 111545. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111545

    2023

  4. [11]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 188 (April 2021), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3449287

    2021 doi

  5. [12]

    Tove Bøe. 2018. E-learning technology and higher education: the impact of organizational trust.Tertiary Education and Management24, 4 (2018), 362–376. doi:10.1080/13583883.2018.1465991 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1465991

    2018

  6. [13]

    Fabio Casati, Kannan Govindarajan, Baskar Jayaraman, Aniruddha Thakur, Sriram Palapudi, Firat Karakusoglu, and Debu Chatterjee. 2019. Operating Enterprise AI as a Service. InService-Oriented Computing. ICSOC 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Slimane Yangui, Ines Bouassi...

    2019 doi

  7. [14]

    Mikaël Chelli, Jules Descamps, Vincent Lavoué, Christophe Trojani, Michel Azar, Marcel Deckert, Jean-Luc Raynier, Gilles Clowez, Pascal Boileau, and Caroline Ruetsch-Chelli. 2024. Hallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews: Comparativ...

    2024 doi

  8. [15]

    M. Chen, C. Xiao, H. Sun, L. Li, L. Derczynski, A. Anandkumar, and F. Wang. 2024. Combating Security and Privacy Issues. InHuman Language Technologies, Y. Cao, I. Papadimitriou, A. Ovalle, M. Zampieri, F. Ferraro, and S. Swayamdipta (Eds.). Association for Computational Lingui...

    2024

  9. [16]

    Xiaoyi Chen, Siyuan Tang, Rui Zhu, Shijun Yan, Lei Jin, Zihao Wang, Liya Su, Zhikun Zhang, XiaoFeng Wang, and Haixu Tang. 2024. The Janus Interface: How Fine-Tuning in Large Language Models Amplifies the Privacy Risks. InProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Comp...

    2024

  10. [17]

    Avishek Choudhury and Hamid Shamszare. 2023. Investigating the Impact of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis.J Med Internet Res25 (14 Jun 2023), e47184. doi:10.2196/47184

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    Hansen, and Paul Wilson

    Jeff Christensen, Jared M. Hansen, and Paul Wilson. 2024. Understanding the role and impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) halluci- nation within consumers’ tourism decision-making processes.Current Issues in Tourism0, 0 (2024), 1–16. doi:10.1080/13683500.2023.2300...

    2024

  12. [19]

    Jennifer Cobbe and Jatinder Singh. 2021. Artificial intelligence as a service: Legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges.Computer Law & Security Review42 (2021), 105573. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105573

    2021

  13. [20]

    Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.MIS quarterly(1989), 319–340. 10 Hannig et al

    1989

  14. [21]

    E. J. de Visser, M. Cohen, A. Freedy, and R. Parasuraman. 2014. A Design Methodology for Trust Cue Calibration in Cognitive Agents. InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments, R. Shumaker and S. Lackey (Eds.). Lecture No...

    2014 doi

  15. [22]

    Lorenzo Diaferia, Ivo Blohm, Leonardo Maria De Rossi, and Gianluca Salviotti. 2022. When Standard Is Not Enough: A Conceptualization of AI Systems’ Customization and its Antecedents. InICIS 2022 Proceedings. 8. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2022/is_implement/is_implement/8

    2022

  16. [23]

    Doosthosseini, J

    A. Doosthosseini, J. Decker, H. Nolte, and J. M. Kunkel. 2024. Chat AI: A Seamless Slurm-Native Solution for HPC-Based Services. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00110

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    W. Gan, S. Wan, and P. S. Yu. 2023. Model-as-a-Service (MaaS): A Survey. arXiv:2311.05804 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05804

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Zhiyun Gong, Shivani Birajdar, Tam Cao, Yi Qing Khoo, Chia-Fang Chung, Yassi Moghaddam, Anbang Xu, Hridhay Mehta, Aaditya Shukla, Zhilin Wang, et al. 2024. Enhancing Trust in LLM Chatbots for Workplace Support Through User Experience Design and Prompt Engineering.The Human Sid...

    2024

  19. [26]

    Valiollah Hajipour, Saeid Hekmat, and Mehdi Amini. 2023. A value-oriented Artificial Intelligence-as-a-Service business plan using integrated tools and services.Decision Analytics Journal8 (2023), 100302. doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100302

    2023

  20. [27]

    Chin-Lung Hsu and Judy Chuan-Chuan Lin. 2018. Exploring Factors Affecting the Adoption of Internet of Things Services.Journal of Computer Information Systems58, 1 (2018), 49–57. doi:10.1080/08874417.2016.1186524

    2018

  21. [28]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2024. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions.ACM Transactions o...

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    Y, and Lichao Sun

    Yue Huang, Qihui Zhang, Philip S. Y, and Lichao Sun. 2023. TrustGPT: A Benchmark for Trustworthy and Responsible Large Language Models. arXiv:2306.11507 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11507

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Iqbal, T

    U. Iqbal, T. Kohno, and F. Roesner. 2024. LLM Platform Security: Applying a Systematic Evaluation Framework to OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plugins. InAAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES-24), S. Das, B. P. Green, K. Varshney, M. Ganapini, and A. Renda (Eds.). arXiv, 611–6...

    2024 doi

  24. [31]

    Choquette-Choo, and Zheng Xu

    Nikhil Kandpal, Krishna Pillutla, Alina Oprea, Peter Kairouz, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, and Zheng Xu. 2024. User Inference Attacks on Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit B...

    2024 doi

  25. [32]

    I’m categorizing LLM as a productivity tool

    S. Kapania, R. Wang, T. J. Li, T. Li, and H. Shen. 2024. "I’m categorizing LLM as a productivity tool": Examining ethics of LLM use in HCI research practices. arXiv:2403.19876 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19876

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    La Malfa, A

    E. La Malfa, A. Petrov, S. Frieder, C. Weinhuber, R. Burnell, R. Nazar, A. G. Cohn, N. Shadbolt, and M. Wooldridge. 2023. Language Models as a Service: Overview of a New Paradigm and its Challenges. arXiv:2309.16573 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16573

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance.Human factors46, 1 (2004), 50–80

    2004

  28. [35]

    Artificial Intelligence as a Service

    K. Lewicki, M. S. Lee, J. Cobbe, and J. Singh. 2023. Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of "Artificial Intelligence as a Service". ArXiv. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581463

    2023

  29. [36]

    S. Lins, K. D. Pandl, H. Teigeler, et al. 2021. Artificial Intelligence as a Service.Business & Information Systems Engineering63 (2021), 441–456. doi:10.1007/s12599-021-00708-w

    2021 doi

  30. [37]

    Paul Benjamin Lowry, Tom Roberts, and Bryce Eryn Caine. 2005. The effect of familiar logos on trust of websites designed for small user interfaces. In11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2005), Las Vegas, Nevada, July, Citeseer. 22–27

    2005

  31. [38]

    RC Mayer. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.Academy of Management Review(1995)

    1995

  32. [39]

    Stephen McCarthy, Titiana Ertiö, Ciara Fitzgerald, and Nina Kahma. 2023. Sustainable Energy Behaviors through Green Information Systems: An Exploratory Study. In2023 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS). IEEE, 1–8. doi:10.1109/ISTAS57930.2023.10306166

    2023

  33. [40]

    McWilliams and D

    A. McWilliams and D. Siegel. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective.Academy of Management Review26, 1 (2001), 117–127. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011987

    2001

  34. [41]

    McWilliams, D.S

    A. McWilliams, D.S. Siegel, and P.M. Wright. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications.Journal of Management Studies43, 1 (2006), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x

    2006

  35. [42]

    Nagarajan, M

    R. Nagarajan, M. Kondo, F. Salas, E. Sezgin, Y. Yao, V. Klotzman, S. A. Godambe, N. Khan, A. Limon, G. Stephenson, S. Taraman, N. Walton, L. Ehwerhemuepha, J. Pandit, D. Pandita, M. Weiss, C. Golden, A. Gold, J. Henderson, A. Shippy, L. A. Celi, W. R. Hogan, E. K. Oermann, T. ...

    2024 doi

  36. [43]

    Mahjabin Nahar, Haeseung Seo, Eun-Ju Lee, Aiping Xiong, and Dongwon Lee. 2024. Fakes of Varying Shades: How Warning Affects Human Perception and Engagement Regarding LLM Hallucinations. arXiv:2404.03745 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03745

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Cecilie Bertinussen Nordheim, Asbjørn Følstad, and Cato Alexander Bjørkli. 2019. An initial model of trust in chatbots for customer service—findings from a questionnaire study.Interacting with Computers31, 3 (2019), 317–335. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwz022

    2019 doi

  38. [45]

    Oelschlager

    R. Oelschlager. 2024.Evaluating the Impact of Hallucinations on User Trust and Satisfaction in LLM-based Systems. Dissertation. Linnaeus University. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-130539 Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-130539

    2024

  39. [47]

    Parthasarathy, A

    V.B. Parthasarathy, A. Zafar, A. Khan, and A. Shahid. 2024.The Ultimate Guide to Fine-Tuning LLMs from Basics to Breakthroughs: An Exhaustive Review of Technologies, Research, Best Practices, Applied Research Challenges and Opportunities. CeADAR Connect Group

    2024

  40. [48]

    Marta Pawłowska-Nowak. 2024. Identification of Trust Determinants in LLM Technology Using the DEMATEL Method.European Research Studies Journal27, S2 (2024), 694–711

    2024

  41. [49]

    Lydia Penkert and Carla Gröschel. 2023. Increasing sustainable user behavior in digital products through transparent sustainability information. In Mensch und Computer 2023, Markus Stolze, Frieder Loch, Matthias Baldauf, Florian Alt, Christina Schneegass, Thomas Kosch, Teresa ...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Michael Pirson and Deepak Malhotra. 2011. Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?Organization Science22, 4 (2011), 1087–1104. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0581

    2011

  43. [51]

    Sónia Rafael and Matilde Reis. 2024. Guidelines for Sustainable Online Behaviors. Green Computing Practices to Reduce the Digital Carbon Footprint. InAdvances in Design and Digital Communication IV, Nuno Martins and Daniel Brandão (Eds.). Springer Series in Design and Innovati...

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Mihai Sanduleac, Dorel Stanescu, Carmen Stanescu, and Monica Florea. 2017. Energy awareness, an important goal for empowering the end customer. In2017 International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM) & 2017 Intl Aegean Conference on Elect...

    2017

  45. [53]

    Nadine Schlicker, Kevin Baum, Alarith Uhde, Sarah Sterz, Martin Hirsch, and Markus Langer. 2023. A Micro and Macro Perspective on Trustworthiness: Theoretical Underpinnings of the Trustworthiness Assessment Model (TrAM). (07 2023). doi:10.31234/osf.io/qhwvx

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Sivan Schwartz, Avi Yaeli, and Segev Shlomov. 2023. Enhancing Trust in LLM-Based AI Automation Agents: New Considerations and Future Challenges. arXiv:2308.05391 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05391

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Leif Sundberg and Jonny Holmström. 2023. Democratizing artificial intelligence: How no-code AI can leverage machine learning operations. Business Horizons66, 6 (2023), 777–788. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2023.04.003

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    W. Syed, A. Bashatah, K. Alharbi, S. S. Bakarman, S. Asiri, and N. Alqahtani. 2024. Awareness and Perceptions of ChatGPT Among Academics and Research Professionals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Implications for Responsible AI Use.Medical Science Monitor30 (Jul 2024), e944993. doi:1...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Abass Bhat, Shagufta Tariq Khan, Rajaswaminathan Subramaniam, and Mohammad Atif Irshad Khan

    Chandan Kumar Tiwari, Mohd. Abass Bhat, Shagufta Tariq Khan, Rajaswaminathan Subramaniam, and Mohammad Atif Irshad Khan. 2024. What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT.Interactive Technology and Smart Educat...

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Michelle ME Van Pinxteren, Ruud WH Wetzels, Jessica Rüger, Mark Pluymaekers, and Martin Wetzels. 2019. Trust in humanoid robots: implications for services marketing.Journal of Services Marketing33, 4 (2019), 507–518

    2019

  51. [59]

    Jörg von Garrel and Jana Mayer. 2023. Artificial Intelligence in studies—use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications10, 1 (09 Nov 2023), 799. doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02304-7

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Alan R Wagner, Jason Borenstein, and Ayanna Howard. 2018. Overtrust in the robotic age.Commun. ACM61, 9 (2018), 22–24

    2018

  53. [61]

    C. Wang, D. Sui, B. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Kang, Z. Qiao, and Z. Tu. 2024. A Framework for Effective Invocation Methods of Various LLM Services. arXiv:2402.03408 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03408

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Weber, H

    I. Weber, H. Linka, D. Mertens, T. Muryshkin, H. Opgenoorth, and S. Langer. 2024.FhGenie: A Custom, Confidentiality-preserving Chat AI for Corporate and Scientific Use. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.00039v1

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Magdalena Wischnewski, Nicole Krämer, Philipp Doebler, and Marie Beisemann. 2023. Development of a new Trust in AI scale. https://osf.io/j7wk8

    2023

  56. [64]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2401.11817 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhang, X

    X. Zhang, X. Zhang, and H. Liu. 2024. Reflections on Enhancing Higher Education Classroom Effectiveness Through the Introduction of Large Language Models.Journal of Modern Education Research3 (2024), 19. doi:10.53964/jmer.2024019

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    Mingji Zhou, Wei Chen, Senliang Zhu, Tianyang Cai, Ji Yu, and Guoyu Dai. 2023. Application of large language models in professional fields . In 2023 11th International Conference on Information Systems and Computing Technology (ISCTech). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Justyna Łapińska, Iwona Escher, Joanna Górka, Agata Sudolska, and Paweł Brzustewicz. 2021. Employees’ Trust in Artificial Intelligence in Companies: The Case of Energy and Chemical Industries in Poland.Energies14, 7 (2021). doi:10.3390/en14071942

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.