Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

AI, Jobs, and the Automation Trap: Where Is HCI?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · 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 current reward structures centered on cost reduction push AI patenting toward replacing human tasks, leaving human-centered, augmentative AI underrepresented in patented innovation and in deployment.

desk verdict Well-written position piece that overclaims what the patent data show; the recommendations are fine, but the causal framing and the construct validity of the central claim need work before it should be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18948 v2 pith:GTSVOWI4 submitted 2025-01-31 cs.HC

Marios Constantinides , Daniele Quercia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords human-centeredAIautomationaugmentationfutureofworkpatentstranslationalresearchincentivestructuresHCI
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 asks why AI development is so heavily oriented toward replacing workers and argues that the answer lies in incentive structures: patents, funding, and commercial benchmarks reward cost reduction, and those rewards push patented AI toward automating predictable, individual tasks rather than supporting human collaboration. It reads Human-Centered AI (HCAI), the design of AI as a collaborator that augments people and aligns with societal values, as largely absent from this patent-driven record, and it presents case examples from education, healthcare, and the workplace showing that augmentation is feasible. The paper then proposes six recommendations—responsible AI design, academia-industry collaboration, scalable prototypes, job preservation and skill development, worker feedback loops, and policy engagement—to make HCAI principles translate into deployed systems. A sympathetic reader would take the core claim to be that the automation-first trajectory is not a technical necessity but a response to misaligned rewards, and that changing those rewards can shift AI toward augmentation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the automation-versus-augmentation distinction applied to patent data: patents are classified by whether their claims replace human tasks (automation) or support human capabilities (augmentation), and then aligned with task characteristics drawn from occupational data. This classification turns a philosophical debate into a measurable gap. The second piece of machinery is 'translational impact'—the idea that HCI research should show up in patents, products, and policy—which lets the paper treat patent citations and deployment as evidence that HCAI principles are underrepresented. The paper also relies on the reward-structure account (cost reduction, short-term gains, narrow success metrics) as the causal explanation for why automation wins, and on case examples from education, healthcare, and the workplace as proof that augmentation alternatives are practical.

What would settle it

Survey a random sample of AI workplace systems that are actually in use, not just patented, and code each by whether it replaces or augments a human task; if augmentation-oriented systems turn out to be as common in deployment as automation-oriented ones, the claim that HCAI is 'missing' would fail, while a deployment pattern that mirrors the patent pattern would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a mismatch: the vast majority of AI-related patents align with task characteristics that favor replacement over collaboration, so automation dominates AI's design ethos even though augmentation-oriented alternatives exist and have been shown to work. The paper interprets patent trends from two earlier analyses covering 24,758 AI patents, and a healthcare-focused look, as evidence that patented AI disproportionately targets predictable, individually performed tasks, while collaborative tasks are left largely untouched. It reads this as a systemic disconnect between HCI's augmentation-oriented ethos and AI's automation-first trajectory, and it identifies reward structures—cost reduction, short-term economic incentives, and measures that ignore human empowerment—as the driver. The constructive claim is that HCAI has gone 'missing' from patents and from real-world impact not for lack of viable alternatives but because institutional incentives do not reward translational work, and that deliberate shifts in incentives can make augmentation a competitive advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's argument stands on treating patents as a faithful record of AI's design ethos and of HCAI's real-world impact; many patented systems are never deployed and many augmentative systems are never patented, so a patent-only view could overstate how 'missing' HCAI is.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the patent evidence is representative, AI's current design ethos favors replacing predictable and individual tasks, leaving collaborative and interactive work largely unaddressed by patented AI.
  • HCAI's absence from patents implies that its principles, despite mature frameworks, are not translating into industrial deployment at scale.
  • Shifting HCI incentives toward translational outcomes, industry collaboration, and scalable prototypes would increase the chance that augmentation-oriented AI reaches the workplace.
  • Without intentional design, automation may degrade work quality and exclude workers from feedback loops even when it appears to save labor.
  • Policy measures such as requiring human oversight and participatory design could tilt AI development toward augmentation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If patents are a biased yardstick, the paper's 'missing HCAI' claim is too strong; a deployment census counting open-source, in-house, and non-patented HCAI systems would test whether augmentation is truly absent or just unpatented.
  • The paper's incentive argument implies a testable intervention: institutions that reward real-world deployment, through funding metrics or evaluation criteria, should see more augmentation-oriented AI projects emerge; this follows from the paper's logic, not from its data.
  • The automation-augmentation boundary is fluid: a system that automates a subtask can augment a worker by freeing attention, so a more precise next step would measure task-level control and feedback loops rather than treating patent labels as binary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that AI innovation, as evidenced by patents, is dominated by task automation rather than human-centered augmentation, and it attributes this dominance to reward structures focused on cost reduction. It draws on the authors' prior analyses of 24,758 AI patents [33, 42] and a healthcare-sector visualization, reviews HCAI examples in education, workplace, and healthcare, and proposes six recommendations to improve HCAI's translational impact. The paper is a position and critique piece rather than a new empirical study; its RQ2 examples are explicitly not a systematic review, and its recommendations are explicitly synthesized from prior work and practitioner experience.

Significance. If the paper's central empirical claim were established, it would provide a timely and useful critique: HCI's augmentation-oriented ethos is underrepresented in patent-driven AI innovation, and incentive reform could shift AI toward augmentation. The paper has clear strengths: it draws on externally published, independently visible patent analyses, points to a public dashboard, engages with prior HCI and responsible-AI work, and offers concrete, actionable recommendations. However, the central claim currently rests on an unvalidated mapping from patent task classifications to the presence or absence of HCAI principles, and the causal role of reward structures is asserted rather than tested. In its present form, the paper is a provocative agenda-setting essay whose evidentiary basis is narrower than the abstract's causal language claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 5] The core empirical inference that automation-classified patents show HCAI has 'gone missing' requires automation and augmentation to be mutually exclusive categories. The paper itself denies this in Section 5, stating that 'the line between automation and augmentation is blurry' and that automation may enable augmentation by reducing cognitive load or freeing time. Several examples in Section 3.3, such as automated MRI analysis and clinical text summarization, would be classified as automation under the patent-counting methodology in Section 2.1, yet the paper presents them as augmentative. To support the conclusion, the manuscript needs either a construct-valid measure of HCAI principles in patents (e.g., human oversight, contestability, user agency) or a more limited claim that patents emphasize task automation without concluding that HCAI is absent from patent-driven AI.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The abstract's claim that 'current reward structures, which largely focus on cost reduction, drive the overwhelming emphasis on task replacement in AI patents' is not empirically established. Section 2.2 offers four 'complementary explanations,' but no incentive variable is measured, no comparison across reward regimes or funding sources is provided, and no causal identification is attempted. Since the six recommendations in Section 4, particularly 4.2 and 4.6, presuppose that changing reward structures will change patent behavior, the paper should either weaken the causal claim to a motivated hypothesis or supply a concrete test, such as comparing automation-focused patenting across firms, funding sources, or policy regimes.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Abstract] The paper moves from patent counts to a claim about 'real-world impact' in the abstract ('little evidence of its principles translating into patents or real-world impact'), but patents are not deployments. Many patented technologies are never deployed, and augmentative HCAI systems can be built and used without patents. Without a baseline of HCAI deployments outside patents, or an explicit acknowledgment of this proxy limitation, the conclusion that HCAI has 'gone missing' is overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'Although AI coding assistants have been shown to expedite task completion for experienced programmers [37], yet their effects on novice programmers remain debated' uses both 'Although' and 'yet'; rephrase to avoid the redundant concession.
  2. [Figure 1 / Section 2.1] The caption for Figure 1 does not explain how 'automation-driven' versus 'augmentation-driven' jobs are inferred from the dashboard; a one-sentence methodological note (or a reference to the methodology in [42]) would make the figure self-contained.
  3. [Section 4, Table 1] Table 1 lists recommendations and expected impacts, but the text does not always make explicit which evidence from Sections 2–3 supports each recommendation; adding a cross-reference after each recommendation (e.g., 'this follows from the healthcare patent analysis') would strengthen the connection between diagnosis and intervention.
  4. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'by integrating such models into clinical workflows could alleviate the documentation burden' is missing a subject; change to 'integrating such models into clinical workflows could alleviate the documentation burden...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the patent evidence is prior, external, and reproducible; the paper makes no prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a position/critique paper rather than an empirical derivation. The central empirical move is to cite the authors' prior patent analyses (Septiandri et al. 2024 [42] and Kim et al. 2025 [33]) as evidence that automation dominates AI patents. Those analyses are published, peer-reviewed, and externally inspectable through the AI Impact dashboard; the current paper does not fit any parameter to its own conclusions or rename a fit as a prediction. The classification of patent task characteristics into automation versus augmentation is a coding choice made in the prior work, not an equation in this paper that makes 'HCAI is missing' true by definition. The paper even concedes the automation/augmentation boundary is blurry, which is a threat to construct validity but not a circularity. The six recommendations are explicitly presented as synthesized themes for discussion, not as results derived from the patent counts. Self-citations appear, but they function as pointers to independently checkable prior results and not as an unverified premise needed to close the argument. No step in the paper equates its conclusion with its input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Any weakness in using patents as a proxy for HCAI's translational impact is an evidentiary limitation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present. The central claim rests on several proxy and causal assumptions about patents, classification validity, incentive structures, and example representativeness.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AI patents are a meaningful proxy for the design ethos and real-world trajectory of AI.
    Section 2.1 uses a 24,758-patent dataset to conclude that automation dominates AI design and that HCAI is missing, but patents capture only one slice of AI development and deployment.
  • domain assumption The automation/augmentation classification of patents used in the authors' prior work is valid and reliable.
    Section 2.1 relies on the classification described in Septiandri et al. [42] and Kim et al. [33]; the current paper does not validate or reproduce that classification.
  • domain assumption Automation-centric outcomes are caused primarily by reward structures focusing on cost reduction.
    Section 2.2 offers this as an explanation, but the paper presents no causal test that separates reward structures from technical feasibility, market demand, or other drivers.
  • domain assumption The case examples in Section 3 are representative of HCAI alternatives.
    The Section 3 footnote states examples were selected through a semi-structured search rather than a systematic review, so selection could overrepresent augmentation successes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI, Jobs, and the Automation Trap: Where Is HCI?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTSVOWI4

@misc{pith2026250118948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI, Jobs, and the Automation Trap: Where Is HCI?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTSVOWI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18948}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the workforce, its current trajectory raises pressing questions about its ultimate purpose. Why does job automation dominate the agenda, even at the expense of human agency and equity? This paper critiques the automation-centric paradigm, arguing that current reward structures, which largely focus on cost reduction, drive the overwhelming emphasis on task replacement in AI patents. Meanwhile, Human-Centered AI (HCAI), which envisions AI as a collaborator augmenting human capabilities and aligning with societal values, remains a fugitive from the mainstream narrative. Despite its promise, HCAI has gone ``missing'', with little evidence of its principles translating into patents or real-world impact. To increase impact, actionable interventions are needed to disrupt existing incentive structures within the HCI community. We call for a shift in priorities to support translational research, foster cross-disciplinary collaboration, and promote metrics that reward tangible and real-world impact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18948 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Jobs impacted by AI in the healthcare sector as visualized in the AI Impact dashboard (https://social-dynamics.net/aii/) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. 2022. Tasks, automation, and the rise in US wage inequality. Econometrica 90, 5 (2022), 1973–2016. https://doi.org/10. 3982/ECTA19815

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Nikhil Agarwal, Alex Moehring, Pranav Rajpurkar, and Tobias Salz. 2023. Com- bining human expertise with artificial intelligence: Experimental evidence from radiology. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research. https: //doi.org/10.3386/w31422

    work page doi:10.3386/w31422 2023

  3. [3]

    Kars Alfrink, Ianus Keller, Gerd Kortuem, and Neelke Doorn. 2023. Contestable AI by design: towards a framework. Minds and Machines 33, 4 (2023), 613–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09611-z

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

  4. [4]

    Bon Adriel Aseniero, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Joglekar, Ke Zhou, and Daniele Quercia. 2020. MeetCues: Supporting online meetings experience. In IEEE Visu- alization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 236–240. https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS47514.2020. 00054

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    American Medical Association et al . 2023. AMA Augmented Intelligence Re- search: Physician Sentiments around the Use of AI in Heath Care: Motivations, Opportunities, Risks, and Use Cases

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    David Autor. 2024. AI Could Actually Help Rebuild The Middle Class . https: //www.noemamag.com/how-ai-could-help-rebuild-the-middle-class/

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    David Autor. 2024. Applying AI to rebuild middle class jobs . Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32140

    doi:10.3386/w32140 2024

  8. [8]

    David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller. 2024. New frontiers: The origins and content of new work, 1940–2018.The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae008

    doi:10.1093/qje/qjae008 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Lisanne Bainbridge. 1983. Ironies of automation. InAnalysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems. Elsevier, 129–135

    1983

  2. [10]

    Moira Burke, Cameron Marlow, and Thomas Lento. 2010. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). 1909–1912. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753613

    2010

  3. [11]

    Hancheng Cao, Yujie Lu, Yuting Deng, Daniel Mcfarland, and Michael S Bernstein

  4. [12]

    Longbing Cao. 2022. Ai in finance: challenges, techniques, and opportunities. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 3 (2022), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3502289

    2022

  5. [13]

    Alan Y Cheng, Meng Guo, Melissa Ran, Arpit Ranasaria, Arjun Sharma, Anthony Xie, Khuyen N Le, Bala Vinaithirthan, Shihe Luan, David Thomas Henry Wright, et al. 2024. Scientific and Fantastical: Creating Immersive, Culturally Relevant Learning Experiences with Augmented Reality...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Marios Constantinides, Edyta Bogucka, Daniele Quercia, Susanna Kallio, and Mohammad Tahaei. 2024. RAI Guidelines: Method for Generating Responsible AI Guidelines Grounded in Regulations and Usable by (Non-) Technical Roles. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction ...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Marios Constantinides, Edyta Paulina Bogucka, Sanja Scepanovic, and Daniele Quercia. 2024. Good Intentions, Risky Inventions: A Method for Assessing the Risks and Benefits of AI in Mobile and Wearable Uses. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI) 8, MH...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Marios Constantinides, Mohammad Tahaei, Daniele Quercia, Simone Stumpf, Michael Madaio, Sean Kennedy, Lauren Wilcox, Jessica Vitak, Henriette Cramer, Edyta Paulina Bogucka, et al. 2024. Implications of Regulations on the Use of AI and Generative AI for Human-Centered Responsib...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Glen Berman, Harmanpreet Kaur, Reva Schwartz, Memu- nat A Ibrahim, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth Holstein, and Michael Madaio. 2024. Collaboratively Designing and Evaluating Responsible AI Interventions. In Com- panion Publication of the ACM Conference on Compu...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Srijani Dutta, Sakshi Ranjan, Sushruta Mishra, Vandana Sharma, Pradeep Hewage, and Celestine Iwendi. 2024. Enhancing educational adaptability: A review and analysis of AI-driven adaptive learning platforms. In International Conference on Innovative Practices in Technology and ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Matt Egan. 2024. AI is replacing human tasks faster than you think . CNN. https: //edition.cnn.com/2024/06/20/business/ai-jobs-workers-replacing/index.html

    2024

  12. [20]

    Berger, Vagner F

    Salma Elsayed-Ali, Sara E. Berger, Vagner F. De Santana, and Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval. 2023. Responsible & Inclusive Cards: An Online Card Tool to Promote Critical Reflection in Technology Industry Work Practices. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Thomas Erickson and Wendy A Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/344949. 345004

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    Forbes. 2024. 19 Major Impacts AI Is Having On The Healthcare Indus- try. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/09/19/19- major-impacts-ai-is-having-on-the-healthcare-industry/

    2024

  15. [23]

    Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A Osborne. 2017. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological forecasting and social change 114 (2017), 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 6 (1996), 16–23

    1996

  17. [25]

    Nicholas Gardella, Raymond Pettit, and Sara L Riggs. 2024. Performance, Work- load, Emotion, and Self-Efficacy of Novice Programmers Using AI Code Gener- ation. In Proceedings of the on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kuntal Ghosh and Shadan Sadeghian. 2024. The Impact of AI on Perceived Job Decency and Meaningfulness: A Case Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14273 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Peter Gomber, Robert J Kauffman, Chris Parker, and Bruce W Weber. 2018. On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services. Journal of management information systems 35, 1 (2018), 220–265. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Maarten Goos, Alan Manning, and Anna Salomons. 2009. Job Polarization in Europe. American Economic Review 99, 2 (April 2009), 58–63. https://doi.org/10. 1257/aer.99.2.58

    2009

  21. [29]

    Viviane Herdel, Sanja Šćepanović, Edyta Bogucka, and Daniele Quercia. 2024. ExploreGen: Large Language Models for Envisioning the Uses and Risks of AI Technologies. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES), Vol. 7. 584–596. https://doi.org/10...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Shanti Jagannathan, Sungsup Ra, and Rupert Maclean. 2019. Dominant recent trends impacting on jobs and labor markets—An Overview. International Journal of Training Research 17, sup1 (2019), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2019. 1641292

    2019

  23. [31]

    Kyle Jensen, Balázs Kovács, and Olav Sorenson. 2018. Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights. Nature biotechnology 36, 4 (2018), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4120

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Matthew Jörke, Shardul Sapkota, Lyndsea Warkenthien, Niklas Vainio, Paul Schmiedmayer, Emma Brunskill, and James Landay. 2024. Supporting Physical Activity Behavior Change with LLM-Based Conversational Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06061 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Munjung Kim, Marios Constantinides, Sanja Scepanovic, Yong-Yeol Ahn, and Daniele Quercia. 2025. The Potential Impact of Disruptive AI Innovations on U.S. Occupations. Arxiv (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Q Vera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) . 1–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3313831.3376590 CHIWORK ’25,...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Hanyang Liu, Sunny S Lou, Benjamin C Warner, Derek R Harford, Thomas Kannampallil, and Chenyang Lu. 2022. Hipal: A deep framework for physician burnout prediction using activity logs in electronic health records. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and ...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Julia M Markel, Steven G Opferman, James A Landay, and Chris Piech. 2023. Gpteach: Interactive ta training with gpt-based students. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale . 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/3573051. 3593393

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Ran Mo, Dongyu Wang, Wenjing Zhan, Yingjie Jiang, Yepeng Wang, Yuqi Zhao, Zengyang Li, and Yutao Ma. [n. d.]. Assessing and Analyzing the Correctness of GitHub Copilot’s Code Suggestions. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology ([n. d.]). https://doi.org/10.11...

    doi

  30. [38]

    Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal, Adam Fourney, and Eric Horvitz. 2024. Reading between the lines: Modeling user behavior and costs in AI-assisted programming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641936

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) . 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281

    1990

  32. [40]

    Malak Sadek, Marios Constantinides, Daniele Quercia, and Celine Mougenot

  33. [41]

    Ali Akbar Septiandri, Marios Constantinides, and Daniele Quercia. 2024. The Im- pact of Responsible AI Research on Innovation and Development. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES) , Vol. 7. 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31727

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Ali Akbar Septiandri, Marios Constantinides, and Daniele Quercia. 2024. The potential impact of AI innovations on US occupations. PNAS Nexus 3, 9 (2024), pgae320. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae320

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Ben Shneiderman. 1983. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. Computer 16, 08 (1983), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1983. 1654471

    1983 doi

  36. [44]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 6 (2020), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118

    2020

  37. [45]

    Mohammad Tahaei, Marios Constantinides, Daniele Quercia, Sean Kennedy, Michael Muller, Simone Stumpf, Q Vera Liao, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Lora Aroyo, Jess Holbrook, et al. 2023. Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Current & Future Trends. In Extended Abstracts of...

    2023

  38. [46]

    The Alan Turing Institute. 2024. Rebalancing Innovation: Women, AI and Venture Capital in the UK. https://www.turing.ac.uk/news/publications/rebalancing- innovation

    2024

  39. [47]

    Aidan Toner-Rodgers. 2024. Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation. (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, and Thomas Malone. 2024. When combi- nations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Na- ture Human Behaviour (2024), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Ville Vakkuri, Kai-Kristian Kemell, Marianna Jantunen, Erika Halme, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2021. ECCOLA — A Method for Implementing Ethically Aligned AI Systems. Journal of Systems and Software 182 (2021), 111067. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111067

    2021

  42. [50]

    Dave Van Veen, Cara Van Uden, Louis Blankemeier, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Asad Aali, Christian Bluethgen, Anuj Pareek, Malgorzata Polacin, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Anna Seehofnerová, et al. 2024. Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summariza...

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Himanshu Verma, Jakub Mlynar, Roger Schaer, Julien Reichenbach, Mario Jreige, John Prior, Florian Evéquoz, and Adrien Depeursinge. 2023. Rethinking the role of AI with physicians in oncology: revealing perspectives from clinical and research workflows. In Proceedings of the AC...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Judy Wajcman. 2007. From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Community and Society 10, 3 (2007), 287–298. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13691180701409770

    2007

  45. [53]

    Hanna Wallach, Meera Desai, A Feder Cooper, Angelina Wang, Chad Atalla, Solon Barocas, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Corvi, P Alex Dow, et al. 2025. Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502...

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    World Economic Forum. 2025. The Future of Jobs Report 2025 . Technical Report. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of- jobs-report-2025/

    2025

  47. [55]

    Qian Yang, Richmond Y Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D Hagan, Thomas Gilbert, and John Zimmerman. 2024. The Future of HCI-Policy Collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Sofia Yfantidou, Marios Constantinides, Dimitris Spathis, Athena Vakali, Daniele Quercia, and Fahim Kawsar. 2023. Beyond accuracy: a critical review of fair- ness in machine learning for mobile and wearable computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15585 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Mireia Yurrita, Tim Draws, Agathe Balayn, Dave Murray-Rust, Nava Tintarev, and Alessandro Bozzon. 2023. Disentangling fairness perceptions in algorithmic decision-making: the effects of explanations, human oversight, and contestability. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on ...

    2023

  50. [58]

    Daniel Zhang, Saurabh Mishra, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchemendy, Deep Gan- guli, Barbara Grosz, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Michael Sellitto, Yoav Shoham, Jack Clark, and Raymond Perrault. 2021. The AI Index 2021 Annual Report

    2021

  51. [59]

    Qingxiao Zheng, Xi Lu, Qiao Jin, Jitesh Jain, Hedda Meadan-Kaplansky, Humphrey Shi, Jinjun Xiong, and Yun Huang. 2024. Towards Responsible Use of Large Multi-modal AI to Analyze Human Social Behaviors. In Companion Publication of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperativ...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Ke Zhou, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Joglekar, and Daniele Quercia. 2022. Predicting meeting success with nuanced emotions. IEEE Pervasive Computing 21, 2 (2022), 51–59. https://doi.org/doi={10.1109/MPRV.2022.3145047}

    2022

  53. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)

    Guidelines for Integrating Value Sensitive Design in Responsible AI Toolkits. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Article 472, 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642810

  54. [3387]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3534678.3539056

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.