arxiv: 2604.22767 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-24 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.CY

Recognition: no theorem link

The Imbalanced User-AI Relationships as an Ethical Failure of Front-End Design in Healthcare AI

Maureen Mghambi Mwadime

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

keywords healthcare AIfront-end designethical failureuser-AI relationshipsasymmetric legibilitytelemedicinereciprocity design

0 comments

The pith

Healthcare AI front-end designs create ethical imbalances by making patients visible to AI without allowing them to understand or influence their representation.

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

The paper shifts focus from back-end AI ethics like bias and fairness to the front-end interfaces in healthcare AI. It establishes that imbalanced user-AI relationships represent a distinct ethical failure where patients are highly visible through data inference but lack the ability to comprehend, question, or affect their representation. Design choices such as default recommendations, restricted inputs, and suppressed uncertainty erode agency and oversight, as shown in a telemedicine chat case. The author advocates for reciprocity as a design principle to foster balanced relationships. A sympathetic reader would care because these issues affect real patient-clinician interactions even when AI is technically sound.

Core claim

Imbalanced user-AI relationships constitute a distinct class of front-end ethical failure in healthcare AI. Patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference, yet cannot understand, question or influence how they are represented. Design choices including default recommendations, restricted inputs and suppressed uncertainty undermine agency, clinician judgment and human oversight, illustrated via a chat-based telemedicine case. Reciprocity is proposed as a design orientation for more balanced, participatory relationships.

What carries the argument

Asymmetric legibility in user-AI relationships, where AI infers detailed patient profiles while users cannot access or alter the system's view of them.

If this is right

Front-end interfaces can introduce ethical problems separate from technical accuracy of the AI.
Suppressing uncertainty in outputs limits clinicians' ability to exercise judgment.
Restricted user inputs prevent patients from influencing how they are represented in the system.
Designing for reciprocity can lead to more participatory and balanced user-AI interactions in healthcare.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The concept could extend to non-healthcare AI applications where user data is inferred without feedback loops.
Implementing editable patient profiles might serve as a practical intervention to test the claims.
Future empirical studies could measure changes in user trust when uncertainty is displayed in telemedicine interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

That front-end design choices like default recommendations, restricted inputs, and suppressed uncertainty specifically undermine patient agency, clinician judgment, and human oversight in healthcare AI systems.

What would settle it

Observing that patients using chat-based telemedicine with default recommendations and restricted inputs still report full understanding and ability to question or influence their AI representations would challenge the central claim.

read the original abstract

Ethical discourse on AI in healthcare has focused predominantly on back-end concerns such as bias, fairness and explainability, while the front-end interface, where patients and clinicians actually encounter AI outputs, remains under explored. This paper identifies imbalanced user-AI relationships as a distinct class of front-end ethical failure: patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference, yet cannot understand, question or influence how they are represented. Through the concept of asymmetric legibility and a chat-based telemedicine case, we show how design choices e.g., default recommendations, restricted inputs and suppressed uncertainty, undermine agency, clinician judgment and human oversight even where systems are technically accurate. We propose reciprocity as a design orientation and offer interventions for more balanced, participatory user-AI relationships in healthcare.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper usefully flags front-end interface choices in healthcare AI as creating one-way visibility for patients but offers only conceptual framing and one case without evidence that the designs actually cut agency or oversight.

read the letter

The main point is that healthcare AI front-ends can leave patients highly visible to the system through data while giving them almost no way to see, question, or change how they are modeled. The paper calls this asymmetric legibility and uses a chat-based telemedicine example to show how defaults, restricted inputs, and hidden uncertainty can sideline clinician judgment even when the backend numbers are fine. It suggests reciprocity as a design stance to push back toward more balanced interactions.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that ethical discourse on AI in healthcare has focused predominantly on back-end concerns such as bias, fairness, and explainability, while neglecting front-end interfaces where patients and clinicians encounter AI outputs. It identifies imbalanced user-AI relationships as a distinct class of ethical failure, characterized by asymmetric legibility: patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference yet cannot understand, question, or influence how they are represented. Using the concept of asymmetric legibility and an illustrative chat-based telemedicine case, the paper argues that design choices such as default recommendations, restricted inputs, and suppressed uncertainty undermine patient agency, clinician judgment, and human oversight even in technically accurate systems. It proposes reciprocity as a design orientation and offers interventions for more balanced, participatory user-AI relationships.

Significance. If the conceptual framing holds, the paper makes a meaningful contribution by redirecting attention to front-end design as an ethical domain in healthcare AI. It introduces asymmetric legibility as a useful lens and reciprocity as a constructive principle, which could inform design guidelines and policy. The work is strongest as an ethical orientation that synthesizes existing concepts into a new category, though its impact would increase with greater engagement with empirical HCI methods.

major comments (1)

[chat-based telemedicine case] The telemedicine case study (described in the section following the introduction of asymmetric legibility) presents design choices as undermining agency and oversight but offers only interpretive description without user studies, usage logs, or comparative analysis showing that these choices actually reduce understanding or influence. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the central claim that the choices constitute an ethical failure.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract lists design choices with 'e.g.' but does not enumerate them fully; a brief explicit list would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the case.
[Introduction] The paper could briefly note how asymmetric legibility relates to or differs from established HCI concepts such as transparency and user control to better situate its novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the paper's contribution in redirecting attention to front-end ethical issues in healthcare AI. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [chat-based telemedicine case] The telemedicine case study (described in the section following the introduction of asymmetric legibility) presents design choices as undermining agency and oversight but offers only interpretive description without user studies, usage logs, or comparative analysis showing that these choices actually reduce understanding or influence. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the central claim that the choices constitute an ethical failure.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's point that the telemedicine case is interpretive. The case is explicitly framed in the manuscript as an illustrative example to concretize the concept of asymmetric legibility and to show how specific front-end design choices (e.g., restricted inputs, suppressed uncertainty) instantiate the ethical failure we identify. Our central claim is conceptual and normative: these choices create structural conditions that undermine agency and oversight, drawing on ethical analysis and HCI literature rather than on empirical demonstration of reduced understanding. We agree that this distinction merits greater clarity to avoid any implication of empirical evidence. In the revised manuscript we will (1) add explicit language stating the illustrative purpose of the case, (2) strengthen the conceptual grounding of the claim, and (3) note empirical validation of these effects as an important direction for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper advances a normative conceptual argument identifying imbalanced user-AI relationships as a front-end ethical failure in healthcare AI, illustrated through asymmetric legibility and a telemedicine case study. It draws on established ethical concepts without any mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-referential definitions that reduce the core claim to its own inputs. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or renamings of known results are present that would create circularity; the reasoning remains self-contained as ethical orientation rather than a technical or empirical derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on normative assumptions about the value of user agency and the causal link between interface design and loss of oversight, without new empirical parameters or entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Patients and clinicians require agency to understand and influence how AI systems represent them in healthcare interactions
Invoked to classify the described visibility asymmetry as an ethical failure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5430 in / 1225 out tokens · 47535 ms · 2026-05-15T00:22:36.291914+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori 5 Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1...

work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233 2019
[2]

Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society 20, 3: 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645

work page doi:10.1177/1461444816676645 2018
[3]

Tom Beauchamp and James Childress. 2019. Principles of Biomedical Ethics: Marking Its Fortieth Anniversary. The American Jour nal of Bioethics 19, 11: 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1665402

work page doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1665402 2019
[4]

Robert Challen, Joshua Denny, Martin Pitt, Luke Gompels, Tom Edwards, and Krasimira Tsaneva -Atanasova. 2019. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Quality & Safety 28, 3: 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370

work page doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370 2019
[5]

Polat Goktas, Andrzej Grzybowski, Polat Goktas, and Andrzej Grzybowski. 2025. Shaping the Future of Healthcare: Ethical Clini cal Challenges and Pathways to Trustworthy AI. Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14051605

work page doi:10.3390/jcm14051605 2025
[6]

Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 3: 575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

work page doi:10.2307/3178066 1988
[7]

Joseph Lindley, Haider Ali Akmal, Franziska Pilling, and Paul Coulton. 2020. Researching AI Legibility through Design. In Pro ceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376792

work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376792 2020
[8]

Raja Parasuraman and Dietrich H. Manzey. 2010. Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration. H uman Factors 52, 3: 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055

work page doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 2010
[9]

Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors 39, 2: 230 –253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

work page doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 1997
[10]

Pappas, and Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou

Stefan Schmager, Ilias O. Pappas, and Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou. 2025. Understanding Human -Centred AI: a review of its defining elements and a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 44, 15: 3771–3810. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2448719

work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2448719 2025
[11]

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’19), 59 –68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598

work page doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 2019
[12]

Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.04087

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.04087 2020
[13]

Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition

Lucy Suchman. Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition

work page
[14]

Sara Mahdavi, Christoph er Semturs, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barral, Katherine Chou, Greg S

Tao Tu, Mike Schaekermann, Anil Palepu, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Yong Che ng, Elahe Vedadi, Nenad Tomasev, Shekoofeh Azizi, Karan Singhal, Le Hou, Albert Webson, Kavita Kulkarni, S. Sara Mahdavi, Christoph er Semturs, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barral, Katherine Chou, Greg S. Corrado, Yossi Matias, Alan Kart...

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08866-7 2025
[15]

Basil Varkey. 2021. Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice 30, 1: 1 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119

work page doi:10.1159/000509119 2021
[16]

Weiner, Irene Dankwa-Mullan, William A

Ellison B. Weiner, Irene Dankwa-Mullan, William A. Nelson, and Saeed Hassanpour. 2025. Ethical challenges and evolving strategies in the integration of artificial intelligence into clinical practice. PLOS Digital Health 4, 4: e0000810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000810

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000810 2025
[17]

2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/11 39 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intell...

work page 2024