Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Infrastructuring Contestability: A Framework for Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 AI alignment should abandon the search for one universal value set and instead build infrastructure in which self-organizing communities define machine-readable value profiles, users activate them by context, and…

desk verdict A coherent and honest framework paper that synthesizes known ideas; its central promise depends on unbuilt machinery, but it deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05187 v1 pith:5D5JHHD2 submitted 2025-07-07 cs.HC cs.AI

Andreas Mayer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords Human-ComputerInteractionCSCWContestabilityInfrastructuringAIGovernanceValuePluralismProfilesAlgorithmicAccountability
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

The paper argues that the standard AI alignment target—a single, centrally defined set of values—cannot be legitimate for everyone and therefore cannot support meaningful contestability. It proposes Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism (CDAVP), a socio-technical framework that gives self-organizing communities the power to define explicit, machine-readable value profiles and gives individual users control over which profiles guide an AI in a given context. AI applications would interpret these profiles transparently and moderate conflicts between them, within a floor of non-negotiable, democratically legitimated meta-rules. If this works, contestability shifts from challenging single decisions after the fact to shaping the rules that generate decisions in the first place, making algorithmic accountability a design property rather than a promise.

What carries the argument

The central object is the community-defined value profile: a rich, machine-readable representation of a community's shared values, extending beyond preference lists to include rights and duties and drawing on established theories of basic human values and moral intuitions. The framework carries its argument through three pillars built on that object—community definition and forking, user-controlled contextual activation, and transparent conflict moderation—plus a non-negotiable meta-rule frame that sets the boundaries of acceptable pluralism. The profile does the load-bearing work: it makes values explicit, portable, auditable, and switchable, and it is what allows ex-ante contestation to happen.

What would settle it

A practical falsifier is a controlled prototype test in which members of two culturally distinct communities encode the same scenario into value profiles and an AI must apply both under one meta-rule; if the profiles cannot be made mutually interpretable, or if the AI's output fails the communities' own judgments without developer rewrites, the framework's central representation-and-moderation claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that contestability should be the organizing principle of AI systems, not a feature added to an otherwise aligned model. CDAVP distributes the definition of values across three layers: communities maintain rich machine-readable profiles that encode preferences, rights, and duties; users choose which profiles are active in each context, preserving agency across their multiple identities; and platforms apply transparent, pre-defined, privacy-preserving conflict moderation under a frame of universal meta-rules derived from human rights and democratic deliberation. The paper argues that this turns contestability by design into something proactive: users contest the rules rather than merely react to outputs, and institutions such as police departments become accountable by publishing standardized value profiles that can be audited and benchmarked before deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that community values can be written as explicit machine-readable profiles that AI applications can interpret faithfully enough to govern behavior and to moderate conflicts between users; the paper itself assigns the formal profile language to future work (Section 8), so this premise is currently asserted rather than demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CDAVP works, users can block manipulative dark patterns before they appear, because activated value profiles act as hard machine-readable constraints on generative interface designers.
  • Public institutions such as police departments could publish standardized value profiles, making their strategic priorities auditable and enabling value-conformity benchmarking before systems are procured.
  • Content moderation could split into a universal legal floor plus a user-curated gray zone, letting individuals apply different moderation standards in different contexts on the same platform.
  • Designers would shift from specifying final interfaces to building deliberation tools, conflict-moderation algorithms, and control interfaces, making ethics a property of the ecosystem rather than of a single artifact.
  • Algorithmic accountability becomes achievable because every AI decision can be traced to an explicit, human-defined value profile and a transparent meta-rule frame.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if value profiles become standardized and auditable, an independent conformity-assessment market could emerge, with third parties certifying that platforms apply declared community profiles as promised.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's own future-work list implies that the framework's viability hinges on a formal profile language; a natural next test is whether a small grammar of prioritized rules with weights and exceptions can express enough real-world community values to handle ordinary moderation conflicts.
  • Editorial extension: the user-controlled activation pillar suggests a testable empirical prediction—visible profile-switching controls will increase users' perceived agency and trust compared with fixed global moderation—which the paper does not itself test.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism (CDAVP), a socio-technical framework in which self-organizing communities define explicit, machine-readable value profiles that users contextually activate, and AI applications interpret those profiles while a set of non-negotiable, democratically legitimated meta-rules bounds acceptable pluralism. It argues that this architecture, grounded in HCI concepts of contestability, infrastructuring, seamful design, and values levers, provides a necessary pathway to algorithmic accountability. Three application scenarios (autonomous UI design, predictive policing, content moderation) are used to illustrate the framework and differentiate it from existing approaches such as reactive contestation, participatory design, centralized oversight, and decentralized protocols.

Significance. The paper is a clearly written conceptual synthesis with a coherent internal argument and an unusually honest statement of its own limitations. Its strengths include the explicit grounding in established HCI/CSCW literature, the careful differentiation from prior work (e.g., reactive contestation, participatory design, collective constitutionalism), and the concrete acknowledgement in Section 8 that formal languages and empirical studies remain future work. As a position paper, it offers a useful vocabulary for discussing pluralistic AI governance and may seed future design research. However, its central claim is conditional on two unbuilt mechanisms: a formal value-profile representation that AI systems can interpret faithfully, and a legitimate method for resolving conflicts between profiles in shared spaces. The scenarios in Section 4 illustrate the idea but do not demonstrate that either mechanism is feasible. The paper should therefore be read as a research agenda rather than an implemented framework, and the conclusion should be tempered accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1, 3.3, 8] The framework's load-bearing premise is that value profiles are 'rich, machine-readable representations' (Section 3.1) that AI applications can 'transparently interpret' (Section 3.3), yet no formalism, schema, or prototype is presented, and Section 8 explicitly defers 'formal languages and open standards' to future work. Because the ex-ante contestation promise depends on profiles being faithfully interpretable by AI systems, the paper needs at least a minimal sketch of a profile language (e.g., how values, priorities, constraints, and rights/duties are represented and combined) or an explicit reframing of the contribution as a research program whose feasibility is unproven.
  2. [3.3] Section 3.3 states that 'the platform applies transparent, pre-defined conflict resolution strategies' for conflicts between profiles of different users, but it does not specify who defines those strategies, how they are legitimated, or how they avoid imposing one community's values on another. This reintroduces centralized value-setting at the exact point of disagreement, which is the problem CDAVP claims to solve. The paper should specify a governance mechanism for conflict moderation, for example democratic deliberation over meta-rules, federation, or user-level opt-in to predefined conflict-resolution procedures, and explain how it preserves pluralism.
  3. [4.2.1] In the predictive policing scenario, the institutional value profile is illustrated by 'Priority_Weight(Violent_Crime)=10, Priority_Weight(Minor_Infractions)=1.' This encoding is itself a normative choice, and the paper does not say who sets these weights, how they are audited, or how 'value-conformity' becomes a 'measurable and competitive criterion' without falling prey to the same contestation it criticizes in fairness metrics. The scenario needs either a concrete governance model for weight-setting or an explicit acknowledgment that the weights are placeholders for a political process that is outside the framework's current scope.
  4. [4.2.2] The content moderation scenario proposes a 'federal model' in which users activate community profiles for different contexts, but it does not explain how a shared space (e.g., a group chat) should handle users who activate conflicting profiles. This is precisely the inter-user conflict case left open in Section 3.3, and the scenario's claim that users 'curate their own moderation standards' is only meaningful for individual feeds, not for common spaces. The paper should either provide a worked example of pluralistic conflict resolution in a shared space or state clearly that the framework currently addresses only the individual-activation case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The framework's acronym appears inconsistently as 'CDA VP' (e.g., in the abstract and Section 1) and 'CDAVP'; please use a single spelling.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 presents a 2x3 matrix with six cells, but only three scenarios are analyzed; the paper should state explicitly why the other cells (e.g., Pluralistic News Consumption, Human-AI Co-Creativity) are outside the scope.
  3. [4.1.1] The dark-pattern rule 'The process to cancel a subscription must not require more steps than the sign-up process' is a single constraint, not a full value profile; the paper should clarify how such rules relate to the richer profile model described in Section 3.1.
  4. [3.4] Section 3.4 invokes 'Collective Constitutional AI' to motivate democratic legitimacy of meta-rules, but it does not discuss how such constitutional processes would scale to global AI platforms or how disagreement over the meta-rules themselves would be resolved.
  5. [Statement on the Use of Generative AI] The generative AI disclosure is a welcome transparency practice, though the statement could be shortened without losing its value to the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper makes no fitted predictions and contains no load-bearing self-citation; its central claim is an argumentative design proposal with feasibility gaps but no derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions, so the principal circularity patterns (fitted input called prediction, self-definitional equivalence of formulas) cannot apply. Its derivation chain is argumentative: it critiques centralized value alignment, proposes three pillars plus meta-rules, and grounds each element in external literature (e.g., contestability by design, infrastructuring, value-sensitive design, collective constitutional AI). The load-bearing notion of machine-readable value profiles is explicitly admitted as future work in Section 8, so the framework does not claim to have implemented that representation; this is a feasibility gap, not circularity. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the sole author cites standard external works for concepts, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same author. The dark-pattern RULE example and the predictive-policing Priority_Weight values are user-specified constraints of the proposed governance mechanism, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The conclusion that user-controlled profiles plus democratically legitimated meta-rules enable contestability is a design claim, not a result that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper therefore exhibits no significant circularity, meriting a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on several untested domain assumptions: that value pluralism is the right framing, that values can be machine-readable, that meta-rules can be democratically legitimated, that users will manage profiles, and that forking produces contestation rather than fragmentation. No free parameters are fitted and no physical entities are introduced; the proposed value profile and meta-rule constructs are conceptual artifacts without independent evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Value pluralism, rather than a single centralized alignment, is the appropriate normative foundation for AI contestability.
    This is the paper's guiding premise in Sections 1 and 2, argued through critique of top-down approaches but not empirically demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Community values, rights, and duties can be represented as explicit machine-readable value profiles that AI systems can interpret without significant loss.
    Core feasibility premise of Pillar 1 in Section 3.1; the paper defers formal languages and standards to future work in Section 8.
  • domain assumption A non-negotiable frame of meta-rules can be democratically legitimated and enforced across jurisdictions.
    The frame in Section 3.4 relies on societal consensus and Collective Constitutional AI [19]; no mechanism for global democratic legitimation or enforcement is specified.
  • domain assumption End-users will actively manage and control contextual activation of value profiles in their daily use.
    Pillar 2 in Section 3.2 assumes users retain agency; Section 7 acknowledges cognitive load and power asymmetries as open risks.
  • domain assumption Community self-organization and forking produce productive contestation rather than fragmentation and radicalization.
    Forking is presented as an evolutionary principle in Section 3.1, while Section 7 admits the risk of hardened value-silos.
invented entities (2)
  • Community-defined value profiles
    purpose: Machine-readable encoding of community preferences, rights, and duties; the object AI applications interpret before acting.
    No formal schema, standard, or implementation is provided; the paper lists formal languages for value profiles as future work in Section 8.
  • Non-negotiable meta-rules frame
    purpose: Boundary layer that defines acceptable pluralism and provides the basis for conflict moderation across communities.
    Content is described as derived from human rights, law, and democratic processes, but no institutional or technical enforcement mechanism is specified in Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infrastructuring Contestability: A Framework for Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5D5JHHD2

@misc{pith2026250705187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infrastructuring Contestability: A Framework for Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5D5JHHD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05187}
}
read the original abstract

The proliferation of AI-driven systems presents a fundamental challenge to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), often diminishing user agency and failing to account for value pluralism. Current approaches to value alignment, which rely on centralized, top-down definitions, lack the mechanisms for meaningful contestability. This leaves users and communities unable to challenge or shape the values embedded in the systems that govern their digital lives, creating a crisis of legitimacy and trust. This paper introduces Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism (CDAVP), a socio-technical framework that addresses this gap. It reframes the design problem from achieving a single aligned state to infrastructuring a dynamic ecosystem for value deliberation and application. At its core, CDAVP enables diverse, self-organizing communities to define and maintain explicit value profiles - rich, machine-readable representations that can encompass not only preferences but also community-specific rights and duties. These profiles are then contextually activated by the end-user, who retains ultimate control (agency) over which values guide the AI's behavior. AI applications, in turn, are designed to transparently interpret these profiles and moderate conflicts, adhering to a set of non-negotiable, democratically-legitimated meta-rules. The designer's role shifts from crafting static interfaces to becoming an architect of participatory ecosystems. We argue that infrastructuring for pluralism is a necessary pathway toward achieving robust algorithmic accountability and genuinely contestable, human-centric AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pluralistic alignment research has produced no public evidence of adoption in deployed frontier models, so the field should focus on empirical justification, settled goals, and hill-climbable evaluations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kars Alfrink, Ianus Keller, Gerd Kortuem, and Neelke Doorn. 2023. Contestable AI by Design: Towards a Framework. Minds and Machines 33 (2023), 613–639. doi:10.1007/s11023-022-09611-z

    doi:10.1007/s11023-022-09611-z 2023

  2. [2]

    Jennifer Allen. 2024. Essays on Understanding and Combating Misinformation at Scale. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/155882 Submitted to the Department of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Victoria Bellotti and Keith Edwards. 2004. Intelligibility and Accountability: Human Considerations in Context Aware Systems. Human-Computer Interaction 16 (02 2004). doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI16234_05

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327051hci16234_05 2004

  4. [4]

    Elettra Bietti. 2019. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 210–219. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372860

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Abeba Birhane, Pratyusha Kalluri, Dallas Card, William Agnew, Ravit Dotan, and Michelle Bao. 2022. The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research. In Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–184. doi:10.1145/35...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Hanna Bloch-Wehba. 2021. Visible Policing: Technology, Transparency, and Democratic Control. California Law Review 109, 3 (2021), 917–980

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Nick Bostrom. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies . Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, UK

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Chalmers, I

    M. Chalmers, I. MacColl, and M. Bell. 2003. Seamful design: showing the seams in wearable computing. In Proceedings of Eurowearable 2003 . IEE, Stevenage, UK, 11–16. doi:10.1049/ic:20030140

    work page doi:10.1049/ic:20030140 2003

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Corporate Europe Observatory. 2025. Various reports and publications on lobby- ing for EU legislation. https://corporateeurope.org/. Accessed on 2025-06-05

    2025

  2. [10]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2020

  3. [11]

    Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias. 2019. The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism . Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    2019

  4. [12]

    Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59, 2 (Jan. 2016), 56–62. doi:10.1145/2844110

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Madeleine Elish. 2019. Moral Crumple Zones: Cautionary Tales in Human- Robot Interaction. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 5 (03 2019), 40–60. doi:10.17351/ests2019.260

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY, USA

    2018

  7. [15]

    Luciano Floridi. 2014. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2014

  8. [16]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media . Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 1–288 pages. doi:10.12987/9780300235029

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, John Hoggatt, and Austin L

    Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, John Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs

  10. [18]

    Jonathan Haidt. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books, New York, NY, USA

    2012

  11. [19]

    Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli

    Saffron Huang, Divya Siddarth, Liane Lovitt, Thomas I. Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli. 2024. Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Ri...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (09 2019). doi:10.1038/s42256- 019-0088-2

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Kate Klonick. 2018. The new governors: The people, rules, and processes gov- erning online speech. Harvard Law Review 131 (04 2018), 1599–1670

    2018

  14. [22]

    Procaccia

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSC...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Marchant, Braden R

    Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, and Joseph R. Herkert (Eds.). 2011. The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Mantas Mazeika, Xuwang Yin, Rishub Tamirisa, Jaehyuk Lim, Bruce Lee, Richard Ren, Long Phan, Norman Mu, Adam Khoja, Oliver Zhang, and Dan Hendrycks

  17. [25]

    McKinsey and Company. 2023. The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier

    2023

  18. [26]

    Brent Mittelstadt. 2019. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (11 2019). doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    2009

  20. [28]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press, New York, NY, USA

    2018

  21. [29]

    Eli Pariser. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You . Penguin Press, New York, NY, USA

    2011

  22. [30]

    Karl R. Popper. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies . Routledge, London, UK. https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/open-society-1.pdf

    1945

  23. [31]

    Iyad Rahwan, Manuel Cebrian, Nick Obradovich, Josh Bongard, Jean- François Bonnefon, Cynthia Breazeal, Jacob Crandall, Nicholas Christakis, Iain Couzin F.R.S., Matthew Jackson, Nicholas Jennings, Ece Kamar, Isabel Kloumann, Hugo Larochelle, David Lazer, Richard McElreath, Alan...

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Barnes Parker

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Barnes Parker. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end frame- work for algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of ...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Eric S. Raymond. 2001. The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary . O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, USA

    2001

  26. [34]

    Johan Rockström, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lam- bin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhu- ber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Sny...

    2009

  27. [35]

    Shalom Schwartz. 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2 (12 2012). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116

    2012

  28. [36]

    Katie Shilton. 2013. Values Levers: Building Ethics Into Design. Science, Technol- ogy, & Human Values 38 (05 2013), 374–397. doi:10.2307/23474474

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2022. Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192845290.001.0001

    2022

  30. [38]

    Hwang, Sydney Levine, Valentina Pyatkin, Peter West, Nouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Kavel Rao, Chandra Bhagavatula, Maarten Sap, John Tasioulas, and Yejin Choi

    Taylor Sorensen, Liwei Jiang, Jena D. Hwang, Sydney Levine, Valentina Pyatkin, Peter West, Nouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Kavel Rao, Chandra Bhagavatula, Maarten Sap, John Tasioulas, and Yejin Choi. 2024. Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duti...

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Susan Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research 7 (03 1996), 111–134. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111

    1996 doi

  32. [40]

    Sheldon Stryker and Peter Burke. 2000. The Past, Present, and Future of An Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63 (12 2000), 284. doi:10.2307/ 2695840

    2000

  33. [41]

    Sunstein

    Cass R. Sunstein. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA

    2017

  34. [42]

    Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. InProceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (Gothenburg, Sweden) (FairWare ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10. 1145/3194770.3194776

    2018

  35. [43]

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power . PublicAffairs, New York, NY, USA

    2019

  36. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174108

    2018

  37. [2025]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.08640

    Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.08640

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.