pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20258 · v1 · pith:6JQULTKSnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

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

Simon Aagaard Enni , Malthe Stavning Erslev , Karl-Emil Kj{\ae}r Bilstrup , Kristoffer Laigaard Nielbo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords editorial alignmentparticipatory designLLM alignmentknowledge disseminationdesign workshopseditorial standardsparticipatory AI
0
0 comments X

The pith

Editorial standards can be turned into design artefacts that align LLMs to editorial values in knowledge dissemination.

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

The paper explores how editors can participate in aligning LLM interfaces to their standards using design workshops. In a case study with a public knowledge institution, it shows that treating the editorial standard as a design artefact allows translation of practice and values into technical objectives. This approach, called editorial alignment, is positioned within Participatory AI to give editors ongoing agency against commercial LLM defaults. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way for public institutions to maintain editorial authority in AI-driven dissemination.

Core claim

Editorial alignment is introduced as a design practice that frames AI alignment as a design process, positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact translating editorial practice and values into alignment objectives for LLM interfaces in knowledge dissemination.

What carries the argument

The editorial standard as a design artefact that translates editorial practice into alignment objectives.

Load-bearing premise

Design workshops with editors can successfully translate editorial standards into technical alignment objectives that an LLM interface will follow in practice.

What would settle it

Observing whether the LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface adheres to the translated editorial objectives during actual use by the institution.

read the original abstract

The emergence of LLM-driven information services is reshaping the conditions under which public knowledge institutions operate, threatening to absorb the editorial function these institutions exist to exercise. While LLMs offer powerful new affordances for knowledge dissemination, editorial authority is challenged by pretrained LLMs that arrive already aligned with the values and dissemination strategies of their commercial developers. This paper investigates editor participation in re-aligning LLM interfaces to editorial standards through design workshops, in a case study where we design and implement an LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface with a Nordic public knowledge institution. We introduce editorial alignment as a design practice within Participatory AI, framing AI alignment as a design process and positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact that translates editorial practice and values into alignment objectives for technical implementation. Last, we discuss how editorial alignment can create space for ongoing participation and give editors agency in LLM-mediated knowledge dissemination.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a case study of design workshops conducted with editors at a Nordic public knowledge institution to create an LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface. It introduces the concept of 'editorial alignment' as a participatory design practice that treats the editorial standard as a design artefact to translate editorial values into technical alignment objectives for LLMs. The central claim is that this process can preserve and extend editorial agency in LLM-mediated knowledge dissemination by enabling ongoing participation.

Significance. If the translation from workshop-derived objectives to LLM behavior can be demonstrated, the work would provide a concrete participatory method for knowledge institutions to counter commercial LLM defaults. The framing of alignment as a design process rather than a purely technical one is a useful conceptual contribution to Participatory AI. The detailed workshop description offers a replicable template, which is a strength. However, the lack of any outcome data means the significance remains that of a well-documented proposal rather than a validated intervention.

major comments (2)
  1. [Case study and implementation] Case study / implementation description: the manuscript details the workshops and the resulting interface but reports no evaluation data, adherence metrics, editor feedback on output fidelity, or comparison against baseline LLM behavior. This directly undermines the claim that the derived alignment objectives will be enacted by the LLM and thereby grant editors agency.
  2. [Abstract and discussion] Abstract and discussion sections: the assertion that editorial alignment 'can create space for ongoing participation' rests on the untested assumption that workshop outputs will reliably constrain the deployed LLM; without a mechanism or test for this link, the participatory framing functions as a design proposal rather than an evidenced outcome.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Related work] The distinction between 'editorial alignment' and prior work on value alignment or participatory AI could be sharpened with additional citations in the related-work section.
  2. [Implementation] Clarify how the alignment objectives were operationalized as prompts or system constraints in the implemented interface; this would aid reproducibility even in the absence of evaluation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the scope of our contribution. The manuscript presents a case study of a participatory design process rather than an empirical evaluation of LLM outputs. We address the major comments below and will revise the abstract and discussion to more precisely frame the work as a design proposal and replicable method.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Case study and implementation] Case study / implementation description: the manuscript details the workshops and the resulting interface but reports no evaluation data, adherence metrics, editor feedback on output fidelity, or comparison against baseline LLM behavior. This directly undermines the claim that the derived alignment objectives will be enacted by the LLM and thereby grant editors agency.

    Authors: We agree that no quantitative evaluation data, adherence metrics, or output fidelity tests are reported. The study scope is the participatory workshop process for deriving alignment objectives from editorial standards, not the subsequent technical implementation or validation of LLM behavior. The central claim concerns how the process translates editorial values into design artifacts; we do not claim that the objectives will automatically constrain any deployed LLM without further engineering. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly delimit the contribution as a documented participatory method and template, removing any implication of validated enactment. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and discussion] Abstract and discussion sections: the assertion that editorial alignment 'can create space for ongoing participation' rests on the untested assumption that workshop outputs will reliably constrain the deployed LLM; without a mechanism or test for this link, the participatory framing functions as a design proposal rather than an evidenced outcome.

    Authors: The phrasing 'can create space' is intended to describe the potential of the participatory approach rather than an evidenced outcome. The paper's contribution lies in framing alignment as a design process and providing a replicable workshop template; it does not present empirical tests of LLM constraint. We will revise the abstract and discussion to remove any language that could be read as claiming validated agency or reliable enactment, emphasizing instead the conceptual and methodological contribution to Participatory AI. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: qualitative case study with no derivations or fitted claims

full rationale

The paper presents a descriptive qualitative case study of design workshops with editors to frame 'editorial alignment' as a participatory design practice. No equations, parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text or abstract. The central claim—that positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact can grant ongoing agency—is advanced through narrative description of the case rather than any reduction to inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the work does not rename empirical patterns or smuggle ansatzes. The absence of any technical derivation chain makes circularity analysis inapplicable; the paper is self-contained as an exploratory HCI contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper is a qualitative design case study. It introduces one new conceptual entity (editorial alignment) but contains no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or quantitative assumptions.

invented entities (1)
  • editorial alignment no independent evidence
    purpose: A design practice that translates editorial standards into LLM alignment objectives
    Introduced in the abstract as the central contribution of the work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5700 in / 1137 out tokens · 13992 ms · 2026-06-26T15:48:11.056663+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marina Adami. 2025. Nordic AI in Media Summit 2025: Five takeaways from this annual event on the future of news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Jour- nalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/nordic-ai-media-summit- 2025-five-takeaways-annual-event-future-news Accessed 22-04-2026

    2025

  2. [2]

    Philip E. Agre. 1997. Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI. InSocial Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide, Geoffrey C. Bowker, Susan Leigh Star, William Turner, and Les Gasser (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    1997

  3. [3]

    Anne Arzberger, Stefan Buijsman, Maria Luce Lupetti, Alessandro Bozzon, and Jie Yang. 2024. Nothing Comes Without Its World – Practical Challenges of Aligning LLMs to Situated Human Values through RLHF.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society7, 1 (Oct. 2024), 61–73. doi:10. 1609/aies.v7i1.31617

    2024

  4. [4]

    Anne Arzberger, Enrico Liscio, Maria Luce Lupetti, Inigo Martinez de Rituerto de Troya, and Jie Yang. 2026. Co-Constructing Alignment: A Participatory Approach to Situate AI Values. arXiv:2601.15895 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15895

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Isaac Asimov. 1942. Runaround.Astounding Science Fiction(March 1942)

    1942

  6. [6]

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. 2022. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Marie Bilde. 2026. Retningslinjer for brug af kunstig intelligens. https://om.lex. dk/Retningslinjer_for_brug_af_kunstig_intelligens Accessed: 2026-04-22

    2026

  8. [8]

    Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Luke Connelly, Line Have Musaeus, Magnus Høholt Kaspersen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2025. From Automation to Integration: Designing Opportunities for Students and Teachers to Act Skillfully Around AI in Existing K-12 Subjects. InProceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’25). Association for Computing Machi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3713043.3728857 2025

  9. [9]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization(Arlington, VA, USA)(EAAMO ’22). Association for Com...

    work page doi:10.1145/3551624.3555290 2022

  10. [10]

    Iversen, and Rachel C

    Susanne Bødker, Christian Dindler, Ole S. Iversen, and Rachel C. Smith. 2021. Participatory Design(1 ed.). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02235-7 Softcover published 24 November 2021. Series ISSN: 1946-7680; Series E-ISSN: 1946-7699

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02235-7 2021

  11. [11]

    Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Dan Sjögren, and Yngve Sundblad. 2000. Co-operative Design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. In proceedings of NordiCHI, Vol. 2000. 22–24

    2000

  12. [12]

    Richard Buchanan. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.Design Issues8, 2 (1992), 5–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637

    arXiv 1992

  13. [13]

    2025.Newsroom Policies for AI in Journalism

    Center for News, Technology & Innovation. 2025.Newsroom Policies for AI in Journalism. Technical Report. Center for News, Technology & Innovation (CNTI). https://cnti.org/reports/newsroom-policies-for-ai-in-journalism-2/ Third brief- ing from the AI and Journalism Research Working Group. Accessed 22-04-2026

    2025

  14. [14]

    Athena Chapekis and Anna Lieb. 2025. Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results. https://coilink.org/20.500. 12592/rr5ks4r Retrieved April 7, 2026. COI: 20.500.12592/rr5ks4r

    2025

  15. [15]

    Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B

    Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(Long Beach, California, USA)(NIPS’17). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 4302–4310

    2017

  16. [16]

    Eric Corbett, Remi Denton, and Sheena Erete. 2023. Power and Public Partic- ipation in AI. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization(Boston, MA, USA)(EAAMO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3617694.3623228

    work page doi:10.1145/3617694.3623228 2023

  17. [17]

    2026.Elevers brug af AI i gym- nasiet

    Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (EVA). 2026.Elevers brug af AI i gym- nasiet. Technical Report. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. https://eva.dk/Media/ 639065705061789902/Elevers%20brug%20af%20AI%20i%20gymnasiet.pdf Ac- cessed: 2026-04-15

    2026

  18. [18]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization(Boston, MA, USA)(EAAMO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Ar...

    work page doi:10.1145/3617694.3623261 2023

  19. [19]

    Yi Dong, Ronghui Mu, Yanghao Zhang, Siqi Sun, Tianle Zhang, Changshun Wu, Gaojie Jin, Yi Qi, Jinwei Hu, Jie Meng, et al. 2025. Safeguarding large language models: A survey.Artificial intelligence review58, 12 (2025), 382

    2025

  20. [20]

    1988.Work-oriented design of computer artifacts

    Pelle Ehn. 1988.Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Ph. D. Dissertation. Arbetslivscentrum

    1988

  21. [21]

    Niklas Elmqvist, Eve Hoggan, Hans-Jörg Schulz, Marianne Graves Petersen, Peter Dalsgaard, Ira Assent, Olav W Bertelsen, Akhil Arora, Kaj Grønbæk, Susanne Bødker, et al . 2025. Participatory AI: A Scandinavian Approach to Human- Centered AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12752(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    English Wikipedia Community. 2026. Wikipedia: Writing articles with large language models/RfC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_ with_large_language_models/RfC. Accessed 22-04-2026

    2026

  23. [23]

    Simon Enni and Ira Assent. 2021. Learning by design: Structuring and docu- menting the human choices in machine learning development.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.00687(2021)

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment.Minds and machines30, 3 (2020), 411–437

    2020

  25. [25]

    Olivia Guest, Marcela Suarez, Barbara C. N. Müller, Edwin van Meerkerk, Arnoud Oude Groote Beverborg, Ronald de Haan, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Mark Blokpoel, Natalia Scharfenberg, Annelies Kleinherenbrink, Ileana Camerino, Marieke Woensdregt, Dagmar Monett, Jed Brown, Lucy Avraamidou, Juliette Alenda- Demoutiez, Felienne Hermans, and Iris van Rooij. 2025. A...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17065099 2025

  26. [26]

    Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Christian Dindler, Kim Halskov, Ole Sejer Iversen, Claus Bossen, Ditte Amund Basballe, and Ben Schouten. 2020. How Participatory Design Works: Mechanisms and Effects. InProceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction(Fremantle, WA, Australia)(OzCHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07814

    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. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)(FAccT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658979 2024

  28. [28]

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectations about Generative AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 82, 8 pages. doi:10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544549.3585657 2023

  29. [29]

    Jiaming Ji, Tianyi Qiu, Boyuan Chen, Borong Zhang, Hantao Lou, Kaile Wang, Yawen Duan, Zhonghao He, Jiayi Zhou, Zhaowei Zhang, Fanzhi Zeng, Kwan Yee Ng, Juntao Dai, Xuehai Pan, Aidan O’Gara, Yingshan Lei, Hua Xu, Brian Tse, Jie Fu, Stephen McAleer, Yaodong Yang, Yizhou Wang, Song-Chun Zhu, Yike Guo, and Wen Gao. 2023. AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Rebecca L Johnson, Giada Pistilli, Natalia Menédez-González, Leslye Denisse Dias Duran, Enrico Panai, Julija Kalpokiene, and Donald Jay Bertulfo. 2022. The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3. arXiv:2203.07785 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Helena Karasti. 2014. Infrastructuring in participatory design. InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1(Windhoek, Namibia)(PDC ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 141–150. doi:10.1145/2661435.2661450

    work page doi:10.1145/2661435.2661450 2014

  32. [32]

    Tomoko Komatsu, Marisela Gutierrez Lopez, Stephann Makri, Colin Porlezza, Glenda Cooper, Andrew MacFarlane, and Sondess Missaoui. 2020. AI should embody our values: Investigating journalistic values to inform AI technology design. InProceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Inter- action: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society(Tallinn, Est...

    work page doi:10.1145/3419249.3420105 2020

  33. [33]

    Kasper Lindskow, Mikkel Flyverbom, Árni Einarsson, Stine Lomborg, Rasmus Helles, Nanna Thylstrup, Anders Søgaard, and Jes Frellsen. 2024. Platform Intelligence in News (PIN): Insights and Recommendations for News Publishers

    2024

  34. [34]

    Adam Dahlgren Lindström, Leila Methnani, Lea Krause, Petter Ericson, Íñigo Martínez de Rituerto de Troya, Dimitri Coelho Mollo, and Roel Dobbe

  35. [35]

    Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback.Ethics and Information Technology27, 2 (2025), 28. doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09837-2 13 NordiCHI ’26, October 5–7, 2026, Vaasa, Finland Simon Aagaard Enni, Malthe Stavning Erslev, Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, and Kristoffer Laigaard Nielbo

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09837-2 2025

  36. [36]

    Dieuwertje Luitse and Wiebke Denkena. 2021. The great Transformer: Examining the role of large language models in the political economy of AI.Big Data & Society 8, 2 (2021), 20539517211047734. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211047734 doi:10.1177/20539517211047734

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517211047734 2021

  37. [37]

    Claudia Mareis. 2012. The Epistemology of the Unspoken: On the Concept of Tacit Knowledge in Contemporary Design Research.Design Issues28, 2 (2012), 61–71. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00143

    work page doi:10.1162/desi_a_00143 2012

  38. [38]

    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. 2025. A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models. arXiv:2507.13334 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    David Moats and Chandrima Ganguly. 2025. Bringing AI participation down to scale.Patterns6, 5 (2025), 101241. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101241

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101241 2025

  40. [40]

    Michael J. Muller. 2002.Participatory design: the third space in HCI. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA, 1051–1068

    2002

  41. [41]

    Nationalencyklopedin. 2025. AI-assistent. https://www.ne.se/info/skola/ai- assistent/. Accessed 22-04-2026

    2025

  42. [42]

    Rune Nyrup and Diana Robinson. 2022. Explanatory pragmatism: a context- sensitive framework for explainable medical AI.Ethics and information technology 24, 1 (2022), 13

    2022

  43. [43]

    Siddhesh Pawar, Junyeong Park, Jiho Jin, Arnav Arora, Junho Myung, Sr- ishti Yadav, Faiz Ghifari Haznitrama, Inhwa Song, Alice Oh, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2025. Survey of Cultural Awareness in Language Models: Text and Beyond.Computational Linguistics51, 3 (09 2025), 907–1004. arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article-pdf/51/3/907/2523159/coli.a.14.pdf d...

    2025

  44. [44]

    1966.The Tacit Dimension

    Michael Polanyi. 1966.The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. p. 4

    1966

  45. [45]

    2019.Human compatible: AI and the problem of control

    Stuart Russell. 2019.Human compatible: AI and the problem of control. Penguin Uk

    2019

  46. [46]

    Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers

    Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.CoDesign4, 1 (2008), 5–18. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 doi:10.1080/15710880701875068

    work page doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 2008

  47. [47]

    Donald A. Schön. 1983.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York

    1983

  48. [48]

    Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A

    Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. InProceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA)(FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 59–68. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598

    work page doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 2019

  49. [49]

    Social Studies of Science19(3), 387–420 (1989)

    Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Trans- lations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science19, 3 (1989), 387–420. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001 doi:10.1177/ 030631289019003001

    work page doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 1989

  50. [50]

    Statens Museum for Kunst. 2023. Kunstig intelligens på SMK. https://www.smk. dk/article/kunstig-intelligens-paa-smk/ Accessed: 2026-04-22

    2023

  51. [51]

    Store norske leksikon. 2025. Bruk av kunstig intelligens. https://meta.snl.no/ Bruk_av_kunstig_intelligens Accessed: 2026-04-22

    2025

  52. [52]

    Ownership, Not Just Happy Talk

    Emily Tseng, Meg Young, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Aimee Rinehart, and Harini Suresh. 2025. "Ownership, Not Just Happy Talk": Co-Designing a Participatory Large Language Model for Journalism. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3119–3130...

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732198 2025

  53. [53]

    Mattis Vaaland. 2023. Nasjonalbiblioteket nekter å trene AI, men det vil Store norske leksikon. kode24.no. https://www.kode24.no/ artikkel/nasjonalbiblioteket-nekter-a-trene-ai-men-det-vil-store-norske- leksikon/80130242 Accessed 22-04-2026

    arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Yufei Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Xingshan Zeng, Wenyong Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. 2023. Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey. arXiv:2307.12966 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Ryan Whitwam. 2025. Zero-click searches: Google’s AI tools are the culmination of its hubris.Ars Technica(20 May 2025). https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/ 05/zero-click-searches-googles-ai-tools-are-the-culmination-of-its-hubris/ Ac- cessed: 2026-04-15

    2025

  56. [56]

    Norbert Wiener. 1960. Some Moral and Technical Conse- quences of Automation.Science131, 3410 (1960), 1355–1358. arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.131.3410.1355 doi:10.1126/science.131.3410.1355

    work page doi:10.1126/science.131.3410.1355 1960

  57. [57]

    Gizem Öz, Christian Dindler, and Sharon Lindberg. 2026. The turn to prac- tice in design ethics: Characteristics and future research directions for HCI research.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies210 (March 2026), 103779. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2026.103779 14

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2026.103779 2026