Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper argues that AI systems should be answerable to the communities they shape, and that five Participatory Design principles adapted from 1970s Scandinavian workplace democracy can make them so.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:32 UTC pith:TX46EIJY

load-bearing objection A well-written position paper whose framework is plausible but whose case studies show only peripheral participation, so Section 6's 'demonstrate' overreaches; worth reviewing with revisions. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.12752 v2 pith:TX46EIJY submitted 2025-09-16 cs.HC

Participatory AI: A Scandinavian Approach to Human-Centered AI

Niklas Elmqvist , Eve Hoggan , Hans-J\"org Schulz , Marianne Graves Petersen , Peter Dalsgaard , Ira Assent , Olav W. Bertelsen , Akhil Arora
show 40 more authors
Kaj Gr{\o}nb{\ae}k Susanne B{\o}dker Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose Rachel Charlotte Smith Sebastian Hubenschmid Christoph A. Johns Gabriela Molina Le\'on Anton Wolter Johannes Ellemose Vaishali Dhanoa Simon Aagaard Enni Mille Skovhus Lunding Karl-Emil Kj{\ae}r Bilstrup Juan S\'anchez Esquivel Luke Connelly Rafael Pablos Sarabia Morten Birk Joachim Nyborg Stefanie Zollmann Tobias Langlotz Meredith Siang-Yun Chou Jens Emil Sloth Gr{\o}nb{\ae}k Michael Wessely Yijing Jiang Caroline Berger Duosi Dai Michael Mose Biskjaer Germ\'an Leiva Jonas Frich Eva Eriksson Kim Halskov Thorbj{\o}rn Mikkelsen Nearchos Potamitis Michel Yildirim Arvind Srinivasan Jeanette Falk Nanna Inie Ole Sejer Iversen Hugo Andersson Midas Nouwens
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords participatory AIparticipatory designhuman-centered AIdemocratic AI governancealgorithmic automationstakeholder participationsocio-technical systemsAI accountability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes Participatory AI (PAI), a framework that applies five principles of Scandinavian Participatory Design—mutual learning, future alternatives, artifact ecologies, empowerment and mediation, and emancipatory practices and democracy—to the design, training, deployment, and evolution of AI systems. The central claim is that people who use AI or live with its consequences should have a genuine say in how those systems are built and governed, treating AI models less as proprietary products and more as shared socio-technical systems. The paper argues that the same democratic design approach developed in the 1970s to resist deskilling by mechanical automation can answer the threats to human agency and democratic values posed by today's opaque, centralized, and overly generic AI. It grounds the framework in five illustrative case studies—classroom language models, creative-professional generative AI, Wikipedia knowledge maintenance, agricultural weather prediction, and industrial quality assurance—and develops design and socio-technical recommendations that would make AI a situated collaborator rather than a universal tool. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper offers a concrete, value-based pathway to democratic AI governance, not just a critique.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Scandinavian Participatory Design tradition, built for 1970s workplace automation, contains the principles needed to make contemporary AI answerable to the communities it shapes. PAI insists that those affected by AI—workers, students, teachers, citizens, farmers, creative professionals—should participate in its conception, training, deployment, and evolution. The framework maps five PD principles onto four AI design challenges: specialization (how models are fine-tuned from foundation models), multimodality and distributed ecosystems (how AI processes data across devices and services), emergent behavior (how system outputs and role

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the PAI framework itself: a synthesis of five PD principles (mutual learning; future alternatives; artifact ecologies; empowerment and mediation; emancipatory practices and democracy) with four design challenges for algorithmic automation (specialization; multimodality and distributed ecosystems; emergent system behavior; human augmentation). The framework functions as an analytical lens for describing and evaluating AI systems, and as a prescription for shifting participation earlier in the AI lifecycle—so that communities co-author goals, guardrails, evaluation criteria, and integration with local knowledge rather than merely tweaking interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the core principles of Scandinavian Participatory Design, developed in the 1970s for workplace software and mechanical automation, transfer effectively to today's AI systems, which are opaque, continuously learning, globally scaled, and concentrated in corporate hands—a transfer asserted but not empirically demonstrated.

What would settle it

Observe a real participatory AI process from inception through deployment and measure whether the affected community gains binding decision rights over the system's data, training, and evolution; if participation remains advisory or extractive—no shift in control—the framework's central claim fails. A direct comparison of two comparable AI systems, one built with PAI and one without, measuring community members' actual decision authority would settle it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • AI systems designed under PAI become 'situated collaborators' fine-tuned with the practitioners who understand domain nuances, rather than one-size-fits-all tools.
  • Governance of public-life AI shifts toward a public-utility model: transparent, regulated, and democratically accountable, with community ownership of data and value.
  • Participation moves to the earliest stages, co-authoring system goals, guardrails, and evaluation criteria, which the case studies suggest reduces downstream resistance and design pivots.
  • Feedback and adaptation become infrastructural and continuous, since AI can change rapidly and concept drift requires renegotiation of what counts as 'good' behavior.
  • Practical guidance includes 'archipelagos of local AI sovereignty': networks of locally controlled models rather than monolithic global systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Left implicit in the paper is the central empirical risk: whether PD principles actually transfer to AI's opacity, scale, and corporate concentration; a controlled comparison measuring whether PAI processes shift decision authority to communities would test this.
  • A testable extension: the five-principle/four-challenge matrix could be used as an audit instrument for existing AI products, detecting 'participation washing' where community involvement is consultative rather than decision-making.
  • If PAI works, industrial AI development may need to institutionalize participatory roles—worker representatives on governance boards, community oversight committees—analogous to the labor-union structures that powered original PD.
  • The framework's cultural situatedness implies that its prescriptions would require adaptation to non-Scandinavian and non-WEIRD contexts, a point the paper itself acknowledges but does not fully develop.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes "Participatory AI" (PAI), a framework that applies five Scandinavian Participatory Design principles—mutual learning, future alternatives, artifact ecologies, empowerment and mediation, and emancipatory practices and democracy—to four AI design challenges: specialization, multimodality and distributed ecosystems, emergent system behavior, and human augmentation. The central claim is that PAI makes AI answerable to the communities it shapes, giving affected people a say in AI's conception, training, deployment, and evolution. Five case studies (education, creativity, online knowledge, agriculture, and manufacturing) are presented as analytical illustrations, followed by design recommendations, socio-technical recommendations, and open research questions.

Significance. The paper's main value is conceptual synthesis: it connects the Scandinavian PD tradition to current human-centered AI debates and offers a principle/challenge matrix that practitioners could use to interrogate AI systems. The manuscript is honest about its method (§4.1: cases are analytical rather than empirical, selected for author familiarity), includes a positionality statement (§4.2), and contains a self-critical discussion of cultural specificity and power (§5.1, §5.2). These are genuine strengths. However, if the paper is to be more than an analogy, the case studies must illustrate the promised co-governance; currently they illustrate a "participatory ceiling" more than full participation in AI conception/training. The framework is worth developing, but the stated empirical support needs to be substantially reframed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 vs §4.3–4.7 and §6] The central definition of PAI (§3, opening) promises that affected communities have "a say in its conception, training, deployment, and evolution." The case studies do not show this. In manufacturing, §4.7.4 states "the technical AI methods were chosen solely by the researchers"; in agriculture, §4.6.3 states that hardware and data are owned by the startup, and the participatory outcome described is a changed map visualization; in Wikipedia, §4.5.2 states "heavy machine learning computations happen offline" and editors see only precomputed scores; in creativity, §4.4 describes interviews but no participatory design process. The cases therefore demonstrate participation at the UI/data boundary rather than co-governance of model conception or training. Consequently, the opening of §6—"Our case studies demonstrate that participatory AI principles can reshape how communities engage with algo
  2. [§4.4] The creativity case asserts that it builds on "interviews with 30 professionals," but no source, study design, interview protocol, or analysis is cited or described. The text also contains no evidence of participatory design activities; it is a series of possible interventions ("could mean," "might encourage"). Because the paper elsewhere states that its cases are analytical rather than empirical, this case can be retained, but it should be explicitly labeled a speculative/thought experiment rather than a case study. Otherwise it appears to claim unverifiable empirical support for the framework.
  3. [§2.2] The transferability premise is asserted, not demonstrated: "The basic challenges we are facing with today's generative AI are very similar to the challenges faced by early PD" (§2.2). This premise is foundational for the synthesis in §3, yet the case studies reveal structural disanalogies: opaque foundation models trained offline, proprietary data and hardware (§4.6.3), and model choice reserved to researchers (§4.7.4). The paper should state explicit scope conditions and a concrete falsification test for the analogy. For example, it should address what PAI would do in the "offline training" stage that the Wikipedia case explicitly excludes, and how communities could access or contest model internals. Without this, the framework remains an analogy rather than an empirically grounded design theory.
  4. [§4.3.3] The claim that teachers and students are "empowered to fine-tune foundation models" is not supported by the described activities, which involve annotating sentences, aggregating classroom datasets, and training a language model. If the intended model is a small task-specific classifier, the phrase "foundation models" overstates the case; if it is a true foundation model, the paper must explain how teachers/students access, modify, or influence such a model. This affects the strength of the education case as evidence for the Specialization challenge and the broader co-governance claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] In the available rendering, the cells mapping case studies to principles/challenges appear empty. Please verify that the table displays the intended coverage marks.
  2. [§3.1–§3.2] The principle and challenge headings contain nonstandard inline symbols (e.g., "/graduati⌢n-cap", "/hand-sparkles") that appear to be rendering artifacts or icon placeholders. Replace these with clean text or proper figures.
  3. [§4.5.2] The "preliminary user study involving five Wikipedia editors" is reported without participant recruitment, task details, measures, or analysis. Since the case is analytical this is acceptable, but the sentence should be hedged (e.g., "an informal pilot") to avoid implying a formal empirical study.
  4. [§5.3] The footnote about PD expanding into everyday life is tangential to the civic-AI argument; consider moving it to the main text or removing it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PAI framework is an explicitly normative synthesis of external PD literature, and the case studies are declared illustrative rather than derived evidence.

full rationale

This is a conceptual and position paper rather than an empirical derivation, so the main circularity risks are (a) deriving the framework from the same cases used to 'demonstrate' it, and (b) load-bearing self-citation. Neither materializes. Section 4.1 explicitly states: 'Their purpose is analytical rather than empirical. We explicitly did not derive our participatory AI framework from these cases; instead, we use them to illustrate how the framework can guide analysis and description of AI systems through a participatory lens.' The framework in Section 3 is presented as a synthesis of PD principles from the external PD literature (Bødker et al., Ehn, Kyng, etc.) applied to four AI design challenges; it is not defined in terms of the case outcomes. The case studies are further self-limited in ways that reduce any empirical claim: Section 4.5.2 notes that 'heavy machine learning computations happen offline'; Section 4.6.3 says 'both hardware and produced data are owned by the startup company'; Section 4.7.4 admits 'the technical AI methods were chosen solely by the researchers'; and Section 5.1 concedes that Scandinavian PD is a culturally specific framework whose universalization would be problematic. These passages undercut the strong Section 6 sentence 'Our case studies demonstrate that participatory AI principles can reshape how communities engage with algorithmic systems' — but an evidential overclaim is not circularity: the paper does not reduce its conclusion to its premises by construction. Self-citation is substantial (Bødker, Bilstrup, Petersen, Inie, Falk, Yildirim, Arora, Pablos-Sarabia, Grønbæk, etc.), including the novelty assertion in Section 2.1 that 'sole in the literature is Inie et al.'s work applying participatory methods specifically to generative AI tools for creative professionals.' That assertion rests on co-authored prior work and is mildly self-referential, but it is not load-bearing for the central framework's derivation. The central claim that PD principles can be applied to AI is supported by an independent body of PD scholarship and by the paper's own normative argument. Therefore: no significant circularity, score 1 for minor non-load-bearing self-citation and overstatement, not for circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical entities, free parameters, or fitted constants are introduced; the paper is a conceptual framework proposal. The axioms above are the domain assumptions on which the central claim rests, especially the transferability of PD principles to AI and the sufficiency of the illustrative case studies.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The five listed principles (mutual learning, future alternatives, artifact ecologies, empowerment and mediation, emancipatory practices and democracy) faithfully capture the core of Scandinavian Participatory Design.
    Used as the basis of the framework (Section 3.1). The paper cites Bødker et al. [24] but does not justify why exactly these five and not others.
  • domain assumption The challenges of algorithmic automation in AI are sufficiently similar to 1970s mechanical automation that PD principles transfer without fundamental modification.
    Stated in Section 2.2: 'The basic challenges we are facing with today's generative AI are very similar to the challenges faced by early PD'. This is the core transferability premise.
  • domain assumption Democratic participation in AI conception, training, deployment, and evolution is practically feasible notwithstanding technical opacity and corporate control.
    Implied by the PAI proposal (Section 3); the paper acknowledges difficulties (e.g., Sloane et al. on participation washing) but the framework assumes meaningful participation is achievable.
  • ad hoc to paper The five case studies, selected for author familiarity, are sufficient to illustrate the framework's applicability.
    Section 4.1 explicitly states the selection criteria and acknowledges the sample is illustrative; the cases are used to demonstrate the framework, not to test it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28391 in / 11545 out tokens · 111718 ms · 2026-08-04T16:32:54.306155+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Participatory AI: A Scandinavian Approach to Human-Centered AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TX46EIJY

@misc{pith2026250912752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Participatory AI: A Scandinavian Approach to Human-Centered AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TX46EIJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.12752}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

AI's transformative impact on work, education, and everyday life makes it as much a political artifact as a technological one. Current AI models are opaque, centralized, and overly generic. The algorithmic automation they provide threatens human agency and democratic values in both workplaces and daily life. To confront such challenges, we turn to Scandinavian Participatory Design (PD), which was devised in the 1970s to face a similar threat from mechanical automation. In the PD tradition, technology is seen not just as an artifact, but as a locus of democracy. Drawing from this tradition, we propose Participatory AI as a PD approach to human-centered AI that applies five PD principles to four design challenges for algorithmic automation. We use concrete case studies to illustrate how to treat AI models less as proprietary products and more as shared socio-technical systems that enhance rather than diminish human agency, human dignity, and human values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12752 by Akhil Arora, Anton Wolter, Arvind Srinivasan, Caroline Berger, Christoph A. Johns, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, Duosi Dai, Eva Eriksson, Eve Hoggan, Gabriela Molina Le\'on, Germ\'an Leiva, Hans-J\"org Schulz, Hugo Andersson, Ira Assent, Jeanette Falk, Jens Emil Sloth Gr{\o}nb{\ae}k, Joachim Nyborg, Johannes Ellemose, Jonas Frich, Juan S\'anchez Esquivel, Kaj Gr{\o}nb{\ae}k, Karl-Emil Kj{\ae}r Bilstrup, Kim Halskov, Luke Connelly, Marianne Graves Petersen, Meredith Siang-Yun Chou, Michael Mose Biskjaer, Michael Wessely, Michel Yildirim, Midas Nouwens, Mille Skovhus Lunding, Morten Birk, Nanna Inie, Nearchos Potamitis, Niklas Elmqvist, Olav W. Bertelsen, Ole Sejer Iversen, Peter Dalsgaard, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Rafael Pablos Sarabia, Sebastian Hubenschmid, Simon Aagaard Enni, Stefanie Zollmann, Susanne B{\o}dker, Thorbj{\o}rn Mikkelsen, Tobias Langlotz, Vaishali Dhanoa, Yijing Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Participatory AI. Our new framework for Participatory AI (PAI) applies the original prin￾ciples of Scandinavian Participatory Design (PD) to the new threats to human agency and democracy imposed by the ongoing Golden Age of artificial intelligence. 1 Introduction In 1970s Scandinavia, a distinctive approach to technological change emerged amid strong labor unions, robust worker protections, and progressive… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AI in the classroom. To support teachers and students in acting skillfully around AI, we explore how AI technologies and methods can interplay with knowledge and skills in existing school subjects. From left to right: Teachers engaging with AI activities as part of a workshop; students discussing sentences which they are annotating to train a language model; a teacher’s lesson plan which integrates machine… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Using GenAI to support creativity. A research prototype using GenAI to support diver￾gent and convergent phases of team-based ideation. behind AI was crucial for the teachers’ ability to see AI as a tool they could take control of and use on their own terms. At the same time, the first language teachers’ knowledge of their subject was crucial for developing tools and activities where students’ skills and k… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Human-in-the-loop knowledge maintenance. An excerpt from the Wikipedia article “Emin G¨un Sirer” showcasing WIKINSERT’s entity-aware highlighting via an overlaid heatmap (redder regions indicate higher relevance, whereas whiter regions indicate lower relevance) and the interface components: minimap for global navigation and interaction menu panel for threshold ad￾justment. (Layout shifted for the sake of d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Farmer-friendly AI weather predictions. (Left) Using machine-learning-based models, the startup is able to provide hyper-local weather predictions to farmers via a mobile application. (Right) Physical weather stations in the fields automatically collect data to train and inform the prediction models. dation,” not only technically but socially. This highlighted the need for continuous renegotiation of syste… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Case study: industry object recognition. Overview sketch of first version. Recognition of objects and their pose is detected by deep learning. The table surface display was selected to support work ergonomics. 4.7 Case Study 5: Manufacturing and PAI Industrial environments today face dual pressures: Frequent job transitions requiring rapid skill acquisition and the need to reduce tedious work that drives e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Remote cooperative prototyping. The tool was developed as part of the project to enable remote experimentation on the visual interface during the enforced social distancing of the COVID￾19 pandemic. 4.7.4 Lessons Learned The PD activities focused on problem identification and the user interface design. The problem identification formulated an AI challenge for the researchers to be able identify the right p… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Editorial Alignment: A Participatory Approach to Engaging Editorial Expertise in LLM-mediated Knowledge Dissemination

    cs.HC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The paper introduces 'editorial alignment' as a participatory design practice that treats editorial standards as design artifacts to guide LLM behavior in knowledge dissemination, shown through workshops at one Nordic...

  2. Context-Mediated Domain Adaptation in Multi-Agent Sensemaking Systems

    cs.HC 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Context-mediated domain adaptation treats user modifications to AI artifacts as implicit domain specifications that reshape LLM-powered multi-agent reasoning, demonstrated via the Seedentia system which extracted 46 d...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Philip E. Agre. Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. InSocial Science, Computer Science, and Human-Computer Interaction, pages 131–157, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1997. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    1997

  2. [2]

    Our new AI strategy puts Wikipedia’s humans first

    Chris Albon and Leila Zia. Our new AI strategy puts Wikipedia’s humans first. Wikimedia Foundation;https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/04/30/ our-new-ai-strategy-puts-wikipedias-humans-first/, April 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation

    Barrett R Anderson, Jash Hemant Shah, and Max Kreminski. Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, page 413–425, New York, NY , USA, 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/ 3635636.3656204

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Designing for care in the Wikipedia community

    Abd Alsattar Ardati, Angela Miguel, and Alex V oss. Designing for care in the Wikipedia community. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, page 75–85, New York, NY , USA, 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3666094.3666112. 23

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2024

    Akhil Arora.Modeling and Enhancing Human Knowledge Navigation. PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2024. URLhttps://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500. 14299/240510

    2024

  6. [6]

    Orphan articles: The dark matter of Wikipedia

    Akhil Arora, Robert West, and Martin Gerlach. Orphan articles: The dark matter of Wikipedia. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Me- dia, pages 100–112, Washington, D.C., USA, 2024. AAAI Press. doi: 10.1609/ICWSM. V18I1.31300

    doi:10.1609/icwsm 2024

  7. [7]

    Ross Ashby.An Introduction to Cybernetics

    W. Ross Ashby.An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1956

    1956

  8. [8]

    Baker and Aaron Hawn

    Ryan S. Baker and Aaron Hawn. Algorithmic bias in education.International Journal of Arti- ficial Intelligence in Education, 32(4):1052–1092, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9

    doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 2022

  9. [9]

    From human factors to human actors: the role of psychology and human- computer interaction studies in system design

    Liam Bannon. From human factors to human actors: the role of psychology and human- computer interaction studies in system design. InDesign at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, pages 25–44. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1992. ISBN 0805806121

    1992

  10. [11]

    Tim Bell and Jan Vahrenhold. CS Unplugged—how is it used, and does it work? InAdven- tures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes: Essays Dedicated to Juraj Hromkovi ˇc on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, pages 497–521, Cham, 2018. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4 29

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4 2018

  11. [12]

    Digital assistance for quality assurance: Augmenting workspaces using deep learning for tracking near-symmetrical ob- jects

    Jo ˜ao Belo, Andreas Fender, Tiare Feuchtner, and Kaj Grønbæk. Digital assistance for quality assurance: Augmenting workspaces using deep learning for tracking near-symmetrical ob- jects. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pages 275–287, New York, NY , USA, 2019. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3343055.3359699

    arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    CAD- Track: Instructions and support for orientation disambiguation of near-symmetrical objects

    Jo ˜ao Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Jon Wissing, Tiare Feuchtner, and Kaj Grønbæk. CAD- Track: Instructions and support for orientation disambiguation of near-symmetrical objects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ISS):426:1–426:20, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3626462

    work page doi:10.1145/3626462 2023

  13. [14]

    AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights.Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3):312–324, 2020

    Allison Littlejohn Bettina Berendt and Mike Blakemore. AI in education: learner choice and fundamental rights.Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3):312–324, 2020. doi: 10.1080/ 17439884.2020.1786399

    arXiv 2020

  14. [15]

    From automation to integration: Designing opportunities for students and teachers to act skillfully around AI in existing K-12 subjects

    Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Luke Connelly, Line Have Musaeus, Magnus Høholt Kaspersen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. From automation to integration: Designing opportunities for students and teachers to act skillfully around AI in existing K-12 subjects. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pages 221–235, New York, NY , USA,...

    arXiv 2025

  15. [17]

    Florence in wonderland

    Gro Bjerknes and Tone Bratteteig. Florence in wonderland. In Gro Bjerknes, Pelle Ehn, and Morten Kyng, editors,Computers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge, pages 279–296. Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK, 1987

    1987

  16. [18]

    When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges

    Susanne Bødker. When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. InProceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 1–8, New York, NY , USA, 2006. ACM. doi: 10.1145/1182475.1182476. 24

    arXiv 2006

  17. [19]

    Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping

    Susanne Bødker and Kaj Grønbæk. Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping. In Joan M. Greenbaum and Morten Kyng, editors,Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, pages 197–218. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1991

    1991

  18. [20]

    Participatory design that matters - facing the big issues

    Susanne Bødker and Morten Kyng. Participatory design that matters - facing the big issues. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 25(1):4:1–4:31, 2018. doi: 10.1145/ 3152421

    2018

  19. [21]

    A Utopian experience: On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers

    Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, John Kammersgaard, Morten Kyng, and Yngve Sundblad. A Utopian experience: On design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers. InComputers and Democracy - A Scandinavian Challenge, pages 251–278. Gower Publish- ing Limited, Aldershot, UK, 1987

    1987

  20. [22]

    Cooperative design per- spectives on 20 years with ”the scandinavian it design model”

    Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Dan Sj ¨ogren, and Yngve Sundblad. Cooperative design per- spectives on 20 years with ”the scandinavian it design model”. InProceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pages 1–9, New York, NY , USA, 2000. ACM

    2000

  21. [23]

    Tying knots: Participatory infras- tructuring at work.Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 26(1–2):245–273, apr 2017

    Susanne Bødker, Christian Dindler, and Ole Sejer Iversen. Tying knots: Participatory infras- tructuring at work.Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 26(1–2):245–273, apr 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10606-017-9268-y

    doi:10.1007/s10606-017-9268-y 2017

  22. [24]

    Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics

    Susanne Bødker, Christian Dindler, Ole Sejer Iversen, and Rachel Charlotte Smith.Partic- ipatory Design. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA, USA, 2022. doi: 10.2200/S01136ED1V01Y202110HCI052

    work page doi:10.2200/s01136ed1v01y202110hci052 2022

  23. [25]

    Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Syd- ney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dorottya Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Es...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [26]

    Florian Bordes, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Anurag Ajay, Alexander C. Li, Adrien Bardes, Suzanne Petryk, Oscar Ma ˜nas, Zhiqiu Lin, Anas Mahmoud, Bargav Jayaraman, Mark Ibrahim, Melissa Hall, Yunyang Xiong, Jonathan Lebensold, Candace Ross, Srihari Jayaku- mar, Chuan Guo, Diane Bouchacourt, Haider Al-Tahan, Karthik Padthe, Vasu Sharma, Hu Xu, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17247 2024

  25. [27]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhari- wal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agar- wal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz L...

    2020

  26. [28]

    Bryant, Andrea Forte, and Amy Bruckman

    Susan L. Bryant, Andrea Forte, and Amy Bruckman. Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, page 1–10, New York, NY , USA, 2005. ACM. doi: 10.1145/ 1099203.1099205. 25

    arXiv 2005

  27. [29]

    The human–artifact model: An activity theoretical approach to artifact ecologies.Human–Computer Interaction, 26(4):315–371, 2011

    Susanne Bødker and Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose. The human–artifact model: An activity theoretical approach to artifact ecologies.Human–Computer Interaction, 26(4):315–371, 2011

    2011

  28. [30]

    Cooperative design: Techniques and ex- periences from the Scandinavian scene

    Susanne Bødker, Kaj Grønbæk, and Morten Kyng. Cooperative design: Techniques and ex- periences from the Scandinavian scene. In Ronald M. Baecker, Jonathan Grudin, William A. S. Buxton, and Saul Greenberg, editors,Readings in Human–Computer Interaction, In- teractive Technologies, pages 215–224. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995. doi: 10.1016/B...

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-051574-8.50025-x 1995

  29. [31]

    From rules to examples: Machine learning’s type of authority.Big Data & Society, 10(2):20539517231188725, 2023

    Alexander Campolo and Katia Schwerzmann. From rules to examples: Machine learning’s type of authority.Big Data & Society, 10(2):20539517231188725, 2023. doi: 10.1177/ 20539517231188725

    2023

  30. [32]

    Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J. Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry. The prompt artists. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, page 75–87, New York, NY , USA, 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/ 3591196.3593515

    arXiv 2023

  31. [34]

    Anatomy of an AI system: The Amazon Echo as an anatom- ical map of human labor, data and planetary resources

    Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler. Anatomy of an AI system: The Amazon Echo as an anatom- ical map of human labor, data and planetary resources. AI Now Institute and Share Lab; https://anatomyof.ai, September 2018

    2018

  32. [35]

    Basic Books, New York, NY , USA, 1993

    Daniel Crevier.AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence. Basic Books, New York, NY , USA, 1993

    1993

  33. [36]

    The dignity of work and the challenge of artificial intelligence.Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Social Sciences, 14(3):3–11, 2024

    Melchor Labao Cuizon, Jose Epimaco Reyes Arcega, et al. The dignity of work and the challenge of artificial intelligence.Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Social Sciences, 14(3):3–11, 2024. doi: 10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.14.3.3060.2024

    arXiv 2024

  34. [37]

    GenAI and the crisis of creative labor: Automation, augmentation, and the artist’s role

    Peter Dalsgaard. GenAI and the crisis of creative labor: Automation, augmentation, and the artist’s role. InAdjunct Proceedings of the Aarhus Conference, pages 13:1–13:5, New York, NY , USA, 2025. ACM. ISBN 9798400719684. doi: 10.1145/3737609.3747116

    arXiv 2025

  35. [38]

    University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2017

    Maria Puig de la Bellacasa.Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2017

    2017

  36. [39]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai D...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 2025

  37. [40]

    The participatory turn in AI design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. The participatory turn in AI design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, pages 37:1–37:23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3617694.3623261. 26

    arXiv 2023

  38. [41]

    UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material

    Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 278–288, New York, NY , USA, 2017. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025739

    arXiv 2017

  39. [42]

    Dreyfus and Stuart E

    Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus.Mind Over Machine - The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Free Press, New York, NY , USA, 1986

    1986

  40. [43]

    University of Washington Press, Seattle, W A, USA, 2017

    Marisa Elena Duarte.Network Sovereignty: Building the Internet across Indian Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle, W A, USA, 2017

    2017

  41. [44]

    Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, Sweden, 1988

    Pelle Ehn.Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, Sweden, 1988

    1988

  42. [45]

    A tool perspective on design of interactive computer support for skilled workers

    Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng. A tool perspective on design of interactive computer support for skilled workers. InProceedings from the Scandinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering, pages 211–242, Helsinki, Finland, 1984. Helsinki School of Economics. doi: 10.7146/dpb. v14i190.6547

    work page doi:10.7146/dpb 1984

  43. [46]

    Local union influence on technology and work organization: Some results from the DEMOS project

    Pelle Ehn and ˚Ake Sandberg. Local union influence on technology and work organization: Some results from the DEMOS project. InSystems Design For, With, and by the Users: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 9.1 Working Conference on Systems Design For, With, and by the Users, pages 427–437. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1983

    1983

  44. [47]

    Engelbart

    Douglas C. Engelbart. Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Technical Report AFOSR-3223, Stanford Research Institute, 1962

    1962

  45. [48]

    Eva Eriksson, Daisy Yoo, Tilde Bekker, and Elisabet M. Nilsson. More-than-human per- spectives in human-computer interaction research: A scoping review. InProceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, New York, NY , USA, 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3679318.3685408

    arXiv 2024

  46. [49]

    Entity insertion in multilingual linked corpora: The case of Wikipedia

    Tom ´as Feith, Akhil Arora, Martin Gerlach, Debjit Paul, and Robert West. Entity insertion in multilingual linked corpora: The case of Wikipedia. InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 22796–22819, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2024. ACL

    2024

  47. [50]

    Entanglement HCI the next wave?ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 27(1), November 2019

    Christopher Frauenberger. Entanglement HCI the next wave?ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 27(1), November 2019. doi: 10.1145/3364998

    doi:10.1145/3364998 2019

  48. [51]

    Emerging technologies and alternative futures

    Christopher Frauenberger, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Daria Loi, Laura Forlano, and Ole Sejer Iversen. Emerging technologies and alternative futures. InRoutledge International Handbook of Contemporary Participatory Design, pages 139–164, London, UK, 2024. Routledge

    2024

  49. [52]

    Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. Value sensitive design and information systems. InEarly Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, pages 55–95, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3 4

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3 2013

  50. [53]

    Varieties of participation in complex governance.Public Administration Re- view, 66:66–75, 2006

    Archon Fung. Varieties of participation in complex governance.Public Administration Re- view, 66:66–75, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

    arXiv 2006

  51. [54]

    Inspiration card workshops

    Kim Halskov and Peter Dalsg ˚ard. Inspiration card workshops. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, page 2–11, New York, NY , USA, 2006. ACM. doi: 10.1145/1142405.1142409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  52. [55]

    Kizilcec

    Emma Harvey, Allison Koenecke, and Rene F. Kizilcec. ”don’t forget the teachers”: Towards an educator-centered understanding of harms from large language models in education. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1064:1– 1064:19, New York, NY , USA, 2025. ACM. ISBN 9798400713941. doi: 10.1145/3706598. 3713210. 27

    doi:10.1145/3706598 2025

  53. [56]

    Augmenting minds or automating skills: The differen- tial role of human capital in Generative AI’s impact on creative tasks.CoRR, abs/2412.03963,

    Meiling Huang, Ming Jin, and Ning Li. Augmenting minds or automating skills: The differen- tial role of human capital in Generative AI’s impact on creative tasks.CoRR, abs/2412.03963,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [57]

    Designing participatory AI: creative pro- fessionals’ worries and expectations about generative AI

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. Designing participatory AI: creative pro- fessionals’ worries and expectations about generative AI. InExtended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 82:1–82:8, New York, NY , USA,

  55. [58]

    Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter. Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1311–1320, New York, NY , USA, 2010. ACM. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753522

    arXiv 2010

  56. [59]

    From computational think- ing to computational empowerment: a 21st Century PD agenda

    Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. From computational think- ing to computational empowerment: a 21st Century PD agenda. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, pages 7:1–7:11, New York, NY , USA, 2018. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3210586.3210592

    arXiv 2018

  57. [60]

    Artificial Intelligence – The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet.https: //medium.com/@mijordan3/5e1d5812e1e7, 2018

    Michael Jordan. Artificial Intelligence – The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet.https: //medium.com/@mijordan3/5e1d5812e1e7, 2018

    2018

  58. [61]

    Heekyoung Jung, Erik Stolterman, Will Ryan, Tonya Thompson, and Marty Siegel. To- ward a framework for ecologies of artifacts: how are digital artifacts interconnected within a personal life? InProceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Inter- action, page 201–210, New York, NY , USA, 2008. ACM. ISBN 9781595937049. doi: 10.1145/1463160.1463182

    arXiv 2008

  59. [62]

    Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and chal- lenges of large language models for education.Learning and Individual Differences, 103: 102274, 2023

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan K ¨uchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Demen- tieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G ¨unnemann, Eyke H ¨ullermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, J ¨urgen Pfeffer, Olek- sandra Poquet, Michael Sailer, Albrecht Schmidt, Tina Seidel, Matthias Stadler, Jochen Weller, ...

    arXiv 2023

  60. [63]

    Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphors

    Finn Kensing and Kim Halskov Madsen. Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphors. In Joan Greenbaum and Morten Kyng, editors,Design at Work, pages 155–168, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1991. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    1991

  61. [64]

    Collectives and their artifact ecologies.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), November 2022

    Henrik Korsgaard, Peter Lyle, Joanna Saad-Sulonen, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, Midas Nouwens, and Susanne Bødker. Collectives and their artifact ecologies.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), November 2022. doi: 10.1145/3555533

    work page doi:10.1145/3555533 2022

  62. [65]

    Maestre, Pedro Reynolds-Cu´ellar, Aditya Vashistha, Naveena Karusala, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, and Chris- tian Sturm

    Neha Kumar, Marisol Wong-Villacres, Adriana Alvarado Garc ´ıa, Juan F. Maestre, Pedro Reynolds-Cu´ellar, Aditya Vashistha, Naveena Karusala, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, and Chris- tian Sturm. Decolonizing HCI across borders. InExtended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 106:1–106:5, New York, NY , USA, 2021. ACM. doi: 1...

    arXiv 2021

  63. [66]

    MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA, USA, 1997

    Morten Kyng and Lars Mathiassen.Computers and Design in Context. MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA, USA, 1997

    1997

  64. [67]

    How to make A.I

    Fei-Fei Li. How to make A.I. that’s good for people. New York Times, March 2018

    2018

  65. [68]

    LAION-SG: an enhanced large-scale dataset for training complex image-text models with structural annota- tions.CoRR, abs/2412.08580, 2024

    Zejian Li, Chenye Meng, Yize Li, Ling Yang, Shengyuan Zhang, Jiarui Ma, Jiayi Li, Guang Yang, Changyuan Yang, Zhiyuan Yang, Jinxiong Chang, and Lingyun Sun. LAION-SG: an enhanced large-scale dataset for training complex image-text models with structural annota- tions.CoRR, abs/2412.08580, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2412.08580

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.08580 2024

  66. [69]

    J. C. R. Licklider. Man-computer symbiosis.IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Elec- tronics, HFE-1:4–11, 1960. 28

    1960

  67. [70]

    Trustworthy LLMs: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment.CoRR, abs/2308.05374, 2023

    Yang Liu, Yuanshun Yao, Jean-Francois Ton, Xiaoying Zhang, Ruocheng Guo, Hao Cheng, Yegor Klochkov, Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq, and Hang Li. Trustworthy LLMs: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment.CoRR, abs/2308.05374, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2308.05374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.05374 2023

  68. [71]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015

    Helen Margetts, Peter John, Scott Hale, and Taha Yasseri.Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015

    2015

  69. [72]

    Ziegler, Emmanuel Ameisen, Joshua Batson, Tim Be- lonax, Samuel R

    Samuel Marks, Johannes Treutlein, Trenton Bricken, Jack Lindsey, Jonathan Marcus, Sid- dharth Mishra-Sharma, Daniel M. Ziegler, Emmanuel Ameisen, Joshua Batson, Tim Be- lonax, Samuel R. Bowman, Shan Carter, Brian Chen, Hoagy Cunningham, Carson Denison, Florian Dietz, Satvik Golechha, Akbir Khan, Jan Kirchner, Jan Leike, Austin Meek, Kei Nishimura-Gasparia...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.10965 2025

  70. [73]

    John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude E. Shannon. A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955.AI Magazine, 27(4):12–14, 2006. doi: 10.1609/AIMAG.V27I4.1904

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904 1955

  71. [74]

    A survey of context engineering for large language models.CoRR, abs/2507.13334, 2025

    Lingrui Mei, Jiayu Yao, Yuyao Ge, Yiwei Wang, Baolong Bi, Yujun Cai, Jiazhi Liu, Mingyu Li, Zhong-Zhi Li, Duzhen Zhang, Chenlin Zhou, Jiayi Mao, Tianze Xia, Jiafeng Guo, and Shenghua Liu. A survey of context engineering for large language models.CoRR, abs/2507.13334, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2507.13334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 2025

  72. [75]

    Xiang Wang, Y

    Dang Minh, H. Xiang Wang, Y . Fen Li, and Tan N. Nguyen. Explainable artificial intelli- gence: a comprehensive review.Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(5):3503–3568, 2022. doi: 10.1007/S10462-021-10088-Y

    doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10088-y 2022

  73. [76]

    Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search.Communications of the ACM, 19(3):113–126, 1976

    1976

  74. [77]

    Iohanna Nicenboim.Designing-with AI: More-than-human Design in/through Practice. Ph.d. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2024

    2024

  75. [78]

    The trade unions - new users of research.Personnel Review, 4(2):5–10, 1975

    Kristen Nygaard and Olav Terje Bergo. The trade unions - new users of research.Personnel Review, 4(2):5–10, 1975. doi: 10.1108/eb055278

    work page doi:10.1108/eb055278 1975

  76. [79]

    Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations.Science, 366(6464):447–453,

    Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine V ogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations.Science, 366(6464):447–453,

  77. [80]

    Chinasa T. Okolo. Beyond AI hype: A hands-on workshop series for enhancing ai literacy in middle and high school students. InProceedings of the ACM Conference for Research on Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology, page 86–93, New York, NY , USA, 2024. ACM. doi: 10.1145/3653666.3656075

    arXiv 2024

  78. [81]

    Prompting AI art: An in- vestigation into the creative skill of prompt engineering.International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 41(16):10207–10229, August 2025

    Jonas Oppenlaender, Rhema Linder, and Johanna Silvennoinen. Prompting AI art: An in- vestigation into the creative skill of prompt engineering.International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 41(16):10207–10229, August 2025. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024. 2431761

    arXiv 2025

  79. [82]

    Chris- tiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Chris- tiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feed...

    2022

  80. [83]

    Multi-Source Temporal Attention Network for Precipitation Nowcasting

    Rafael Pablos-Sarabia, Joachim Nyborg, Morten Birk, Jeppe Liborius Sjørup, Anders Lille- vang Vesterholt, and Ira Assent. Multi-source temporal attention network for precipitation nowcasting.CoRR, abs/2410.08641, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2410.08641. 29

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08641 2024

Showing first 80 references.