Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assistants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Culturally informed AI built for Black users gives travel answers that differ from ChatGPT's: it adds Black history, names concrete resources and Black-owned businesses, and speaks to the user's identity, where ChatGPT stays generic.

desk verdict A timely but preliminary comparison of ChatBlackGPT vs. ChatGPT whose qualitative claims rest on four hand-picked prompts; the direction is promising, the evidence is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13486 v1 pith:TAM6LV6T submitted 2025-04-18 cs.HC

Lisa Egede , Ebtesam Al Haque , Gabriella Thompson , Alicia Boyd , Angela D. R. Smith , Brittany Johnson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords culturallyinformedAIChatBlackGPTtravelcomparativeanalysisthematicassistantsculturalrelevance
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 is trying to establish that a culturally informed AI assistant built by and for Black communities, ChatBlackGPT, answers Black travel-related questions in a way that a general-purpose assistant does not: it layers in Black historical context, points to named resources and Black-owned businesses, and keeps a calm, identity-aware tone instead of ChatGPT's detached, overtly cheerful one. The authors contend that this difference is not cosmetic; it is the kind of output that can affect whether a Black traveler gets safety-relevant information, such as awareness of sundown towns, and whether the user feels the tool was built with them in mind. The paper positions the finding as preliminary evidence for a larger research agenda on when and how Black communities engage with culturally tailored AI assistants. A reader should care because the result grounds the 'for us, by us' design philosophy in a concrete, observed output difference rather than in principle alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is a paired-prompt design. The authors took 271 travel-related evaluation questions from CultureBank, a community-sourced dataset of cultural knowledge derived from Reddit and TikTok, ran the identical prompts through ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT, and then compared the outputs three ways: a sentiment model for emotional tone, three readability metrics for grade level, and an inductive thematic analysis of four selected prompt pairs. The thematic coding is what carries the argument: it is the mechanism that surfaces the distinguishing features, historical context, concrete resources, and identity-aware tone, that the quantitative metrics alone could not separate, since both assistants scored similarly on sentiment and readability.

What would settle it

Code a random sample of 50 prompt pairs from the full 271, using the paper's own feature definitions for 'historical context' and 'concrete resources,' and count how often each assistant supplies them; if ChatGPT matches or exceeds ChatBlackGPT's frequency on either feature, the paper's central distinction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 271 travel-related evaluation questions drawn from the CultureBank dataset, ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT produced outputs that looked alike in broad structure—both offered before/during/after advice in a positive or neutral tone, with similar formatting. The paper's central discovery is in what separates them. ChatBlackGPT's responses contextualized the history behind places and experiences, such as the origins and cultural weight of HBCUs; attached concrete, findable resources including named literature; and recommended supporting Black-owned businesses to all users, not only Black ones. ChatGPT, by contrast, kept to broad advice, did not repeat the user's identity even when the prompt named 'Black woman,' and referred to Black communities as 'the locals.' The authors conclude that ChatBlackGPT offers concrete advice and culturally relevant resources for Black travel inquiries, and argue that such tools can serve as a meaningful resource for culturally nuanced information seeking.

Load-bearing premise

The three distinguishing features come from qualitative coding of only four hand-picked prompts out of the 271 total, with no selection criteria or saturation check, so the generalization from those four to the full dataset is assumed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding holds, Black travelers seeking information through an AI assistant can get safety-relevant details that a general-purpose tool omits, such as the historical exclusion of sundown towns.
  • The observed difference gives designers a concrete target: culturally tailored assistants can be evaluated by whether they name resources, ground advice in history, and honor stated identity, rather than by tone alone.
  • The paper's proposed research agenda, a survey, interviews, and demo workshops with Black adults, becomes the natural next test of whether these output differences translate into differences in trust, use, and decision-making.
  • The tendency of ChatGPT to drop or distance the user's stated identity suggests that general-purpose assistants may continue to produce the detached responses that prior work links to user alienation, reinforcing the case for community-built alternatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows: if the three distinguishing features are real, they should be measurable at scale by counting named entities such as businesses, authors, and organizations, and historical references across all 271 response pairs; a simple density metric would let other community-built assistants be benchmarked against general-purpose baselines.
  • The paper's contrast between ChatGPT dropping 'Black woman' from its reply and ChatBlackGPT preserving it points to an epistemic difference, not just a stylistic one; a user study measuring perceived trust and safety could test whether identity omission is what drives alienation.
  • The same comparative design could shift domains: health and education are where Black users already report chatbot use, and the concrete-resources feature would plausibly matter even more there, where a named clinic or vetted organization can change an outcome.
  • The finding that ChatBlackGPT recommends Black-owned businesses to all users, including non-Black ones, suggests a design principle worth testing in other tools: resource recommendations can express a community's values without being conditional on the user's identity.
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. This paper presents a preliminary comparative study of two text-based AI assistants, ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT, focused on travel-related information-seeking prompts drawn from the CultureBank dataset (271 evaluation questions about Black and African diaspora culture). The authors apply readability metrics (Gunning Fog, Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid), a sentiment classifier, and an inductive thematic analysis of four hand-selected sample prompts. For RQ1 (similarities), they report that both assistants use a chronological before/during/after structure and a positive/neutral tone. For RQ2 (distinguishing features), they claim ChatBlackGPT contextualizes Black history, provides concrete resources (e.g., Black-owned business recommendations), and adopts a more personal, empathetic tone. The paper concludes that ChatBlackGPT offers concrete advice and culturally relevant resources for Black travel inquiries and proposes future work with surveys, interviews, and workshops.

Significance. If the findings hold, this work would empirically document differences between a culturally tailored and a general-purpose AI assistant, providing a concrete example of how 'for us, by us' design can manifest in output quality. The topic is timely for HCI and the authors' positionality statement and use of an existing public dataset (CultureBank) are strengths, as is the provision of a GitHub repository with supplementary outputs that supports reproducibility of the data-collection portion. However, the evidence base is narrow: the qualitative claims rest on a non-random sample of four prompts with no reliability checks, and the quantitative results lack inferential statistics. The paper is therefore best viewed as a proposal for a research agenda rather than a fully supported comparative evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.3, §4.2, §6] The qualitative analysis that answers RQ2 and supports the central conclusion in §6 is based on only four hand-selected prompts from the 271-prompt CultureBank set. The paper states no selection criteria, provides no codebook, reports no inter-rater reliability, and offers no saturation check. The authors' own limitation statement (§3.3.3) acknowledges that a larger sample could provide additional insights. The features listed in §4.2.1–4.2.3 (historical context, concrete resources, tone) are then generalized in §6 to 'ChatBlackGPT offers concrete advice and culturally relevant resources.' Because the four prompts were not shown to be representative of the dataset, this conclusion overstates what the evidence can support. The authors should either (a) provide selection criteria and inter-rater agreement and ideally cross-validate the features on a larger sample, or (b) explicitly restrict the concluding claims to the four examined prompts and frame the broader statements as hypotheses.
  2. [§4.1.1, Figure 1] The quantitative results in §4.1.1 are reported descriptively: grade-level distributions 'ranged from 8 to 14' with ChatBlackGPT 'mostly at 12–14' and ChatGPT 'clustering at 8–10'; sentiment is described as 'uniformly neutral or positive' with 'no negative sentiments.' No standard deviations, confidence intervals, effect sizes, or significance tests are reported for any of the three readability metrics or the sentiment scores. With 271 paired responses per assistant, simple paired tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank for readability scores) are feasible and would substantially strengthen the RQ1 similarity claim. As written, the reader cannot distinguish systematic differences from noise, and the 'slightly more readable' claim is not quantified.
  3. [§3.1] The comparison is not reproducible because the specific versions of ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT are not disclosed. ChatGPT has multiple model versions with materially different output styles, and the paper does not state which model (e.g., GPT-3.5, GPT-4) was used, the access date, or any temperature/settings. If ChatBlackGPT is built on an underlying ChatGPT model (a common architecture for such tools, as suggested by reference [23] on 'tailored ChatGPTs'), the reported differences may reflect a system prompt rather than a fundamentally different model family. The authors should describe the exact systems, versions, and data-collection dates in §3.1, and ideally provide the raw prompts/outputs in the repository for independent verification.
  4. [§4.2.2] The claim that ChatBlackGPT 'consistently suggested supporting Black-owned businesses' and extended this 'universally, including to non-Black users' is based on four prompts, at least one of which explicitly involved identity. Such universal claims require full-dataset evidence or a quantitative count; otherwise they read as overgeneralizations of a small sample. The same issue appears in §5.1, where the 'microaggressions' observation (ChatGPT not mentioning 'Black' or 'woman') is described as 'exemplified' by a single response type. The authors should either quantify the frequency of these patterns across all 271 prompts or carefully qualify them as observations from the illustrative sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1 would be more informative as boxplots or violin plots with individual data points; a simple bar chart of central tendency obscures the spread of readability scores across the 271 prompts.
  2. [§3.2] The paper states that filtering resulted in 130 Reddit and 141 TikTok evaluation questions. It would clarify whether all 271 were used for the quantitative analysis, and if any were excluded (e.g., duplicate or malformed prompts).
  3. [§4.2.3] The example comparing 'engaging with the locals' to explicit identity mention is illustrative but not tied to a specific prompt; providing a short verbatim snippet or identifying the prompt number would make the qualitative evidence more transparent.
  4. [§5.1] The phrase 'passive sentiment observed in ChatGPT's response' is ambiguous; if it refers to the sentiment classifier's neutral/positive labels, say so directly.
  5. [References] Reference [2] is a news article about Black Twitter; the citation context in §2.2 is clear, but the reference should include access date and publication outlet details consistently with other citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical comparison rests on external CultureBank prompts and inductive coding; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that ChatBlackGPT offers concrete advice and culturally relevant resources—is an empirical observation from a comparative analysis, not a derivation from its own assumptions. The prompts come from CultureBank [64], an external dataset; the quantitative metrics (cardiffnlp sentiment model, Gunning Fog, Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease) are standard text-analysis tools independent of the authors' prior work; and the thematic analysis in Section 3.3.3 is described as inductive coding [20] with three coders, not a codebook fitted to a target conclusion. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations that appear (e.g., [26], [33], [44], [75]) are used for framing related work and future directions, not as evidence for the empirical findings. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation of coding only four sample prompts and labels the analysis exploratory, which is a generalizability/validity limitation rather than a circularity. The skeptic concern—that the four hand-selected prompts lack selection criteria and saturation checks—concerns external validity and the strength of the generalization, not whether the conclusion is equivalent to the inputs by construction. Therefore, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard can be identified, and the score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the sentiment model's validity, the representativeness of CultureBank prompts, the sufficiency of four coded prompts, and standard readability formulas. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of qualitative-coded prompts = 4
    The four hand-selected prompts carry the qualitative distinguishing-features claims (RQ2); no selection criteria or saturation argument is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The cardiffnlp/twitter-roberta-base-sentiment-latest model accurately classifies sentiment in AI assistant outputs
    The sentiment findings in Section 4.1.1 rest on this model's validity for this text type, which the paper does not independently verify.
  • domain assumption The CultureBank filtered questions are a representative sample of Black travel-related and culturally nuanced inquiries
    The prompts are drawn from Reddit and TikTok via CultureBank; representativeness for Black travel concerns is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Reading the four sample prompts for thematic analysis yields saturation of the distinguishing features
    The paper acknowledges this is a limitation but still bases RQ2 findings on this small sample.
  • standard math Readability formulas (Gunning Fog, Flesch) are appropriate for comparing AI assistants' outputs
    These are established formulas applied without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assistants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAM6LV6T

@misc{pith2026250413486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assistants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAM6LV6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13486}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, we have seen an influx in reliance on AI assistants for information seeking. Given this widespread use and the known challenges AI poses for Black users, recent efforts have emerged to identify key considerations needed to provide meaningful support. One notable effort is the development of ChatBlackGPT, a culturally informed AI assistant designed to provide culturally relevant responses. Despite the existence of ChatBlackGPT, there is no research on when and how Black communities might engage with culturally informed AI assistants and the distinctions between engagement with general purpose tools like ChatGPT. To fill this gap, we propose a research agenda grounded in results from a preliminary comparative analysis of outputs provided by ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT for travel-related inquiries. Our efforts thus far emphasize the need to consider Black communities' values, perceptions, and experiences when designing AI assistants that acknowledge the Black lived experience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Readability of the Responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Shortened Sample Prompt and Output from ChatGPT and ChatBlackGPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distinguishing Features: Shortened Sample Prompt and Output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Dominic Davis. 2024. Black founders are creating tailored ChatGPTs for a more personalized experience . https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/16/black- founders-are-creating-tailored-chatgpts-for-a-more-personalized- experience/?guccounter=1 Accessed: 2025-01-16

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Supplementary Material for Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assis- tants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT

    2024. Supplementary Material for Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assis- tants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT. https://github. com/INSPIRED-GMU/chatgpt-chatblackgpt. Accessed: 2025-03-06

    2024

  3. [2]

    Char Adams. 2025. ‘Black Twitter’ users flee to Bluesky, but the exodus isn’t easy. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-twitter-x-elon-musk- exodus-bluesky-rcna180147 Accessed: 2025-01-16

    2025

  4. [3]

    Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, Chen Ying, Muhammad Yasir Mustafa, and Ronghuai Huang. 2023. Prediction of learner information-seeking behavior and classroom engagement in the advent of ChatGPT. InInternational Conference on Smart Learning Environments . Springer, 117–126

    2023

  5. [4]

    Eslam Amer and Tamer Elboghdadly. 2024. The End of the Search Engine Era and the Rise of Generative AI: A Paradigm Shift in Information Retrieval. In 2024 International Mobile, Intelligent, and Ubiquitous Computing Conference (MIUCC) . IEEE, 374–379

    2024

  6. [5]

    Dimosthenis Antypas, Indira Sen, Carla Perez-Almendros, Jose Camacho- Collados, and Francesco Barbieri. 2024. Sensitive Content Classification in Social Media: A Holistic Resource and Evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19832 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Timothy Appignani and Jacob Sanchez. 2024. AI and racism: Tone policing by the Bing AI chatbot. Discourse Studies (2024), 14614456241235075

    2024

  8. [7]

    Gaurang Bansal, Vinay Chamola, Amir Hussain, Mohsen Guizani, and Dusit Niyato. 2024. Transforming conversations with AI—a comprehensive study of ChatGPT. Cognitive Computation (2024), 1–24

    2024

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Solon Barocas, Kate Crawford, Aaron Shapiro, and Hanna Wallach. 2017. The Problem with Bias: From Allocative to Representational Harms in Machine Learn- ing. In Special Interest Group for Computing, Information and Society (SIGCIS)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Hedin Beattie, Lanier Watkins, William H Robinson, Aviel Rubin, and Shari Watkins. 2022. Measuring and mitigating bias in ai-chatbots. In 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Assured Autonomy (ICAA) . IEEE, 117–123

    2022

  3. [10]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. John Wiley & Sons

    2019

  4. [11]

    Stefanie Benjamin, Alana Dillette, and Evita Robinson. 2024. Black travel is not a monolith. Tourism Geographies 26, 1 (2024), 13–31

    2024

  5. [12]

    Cynthia L Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a frame for assistive technology research and design. In Proceedings of the 20th international acm sigaccess conference on computers and accessibility . 161–173

    2018

  6. [13]

    Kirsten Bray and Christina Harrington. 2021. Speculative blackness: considering Afrofuturism in the creation of inclusive speculative design probes. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1793–1806

    2021

  7. [14]

    Robin N Brewer, Christina Harrington, and Courtney Heldreth. 2023. Envisioning Equitable Speech Technologies for Black Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 379–388

    2023

  8. [15]

    Meredith Broussard. 2018. Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. MIT Press

    2018

  9. [16]

    Dara N Byrne. 2007. Public discourse, community concerns, and civic engagement: Exploring black social networking traditions on BlackPlanet. com. Journal of computer-mediated communication 13, 1 (2007), 319–340

    2007

  10. [17]

    Scott Allen Cambo and Darren Gergle. 2022. Model positionality and computa- tional reflexivity: Promoting reflexivity in data science. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2022

  11. [18]

    Alan Chan, Rebecca Salganik, Alva Markelius, Chris Pang, Nitarshan Rajkumar, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, Lauro Langosco, Zhonghao He, Yawen Duan, Micah Carroll, et al. 2023. Harms from increasingly agentic algorithmic systems. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairnes...

    2023

  12. [19]

    Rasheeta D Chandler, Sheena Warner, Gloria Aidoo-Frimpong, and Jessica Wells

  13. [20]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

    2017

  14. [21]

    Jay Cunningham, Gabrielle Benabdallah, Daniela Rosner, and Alex Taylor. 2023. On the grounds of solutionism: Ontologies of blackness and HCI. ACM Transac- tions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 2 (2023), 1–17

    2023

  15. [22]

    Jay Cunningham, Su Lin Blodgett, Michael Madaio, Hal Daumé Iii, Christina Harrington, and Hanna Wallach. 2024. Understanding the impacts of language technologies’ performance disparities on African American language speakers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Li...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Mark Díaz, Isaac Johnson, Amanda Lazar, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle

  17. [25]

    Alana K Dillette, Stefanie Benjamin, and Chelsea Carpenter. 2019. Tweeting the black travel experience: Social media counternarrative stories as innovative insight on# TravelingWhileBlack. Journal of Travel Research 58, 8 (2019), 1357– 1372

    2019

  18. [26]

    For Us By Us

    Lisa Egede, Leslie Coney, Brittany Johnson, Christina Harrington, and Denae Ford. 2024. " For Us By Us": Intentionally Designing Technology for Lived CHI EA ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Egede et al. Black Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Inte...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Anjalie Field, Su Lin Blodgett, Zeerak Waseem, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. A survey of race, racism, and anti-racism in NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11410 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    I wouldn’t say offensive but

    Vinitha Gadiraju, Shaun Kane, Sunipa Dev, Alex Taylor, Ding Wang, Emily Denton, and Robin Brewer. 2023. " I wouldn’t say offensive but... ": Disability- Centered Perspectives on Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Tr...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Kathryn Elinor Golden. 2018. Differences in the use of AI assistants: how human values influence AI assistant use or disuse . Ph. D. Dissertation

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kishonna L. Gray. 2020. Intersecctional Tech: Black Users in Digital Gaming . LSU Press

    2020

  23. [31]

    Mary L Gray. 2009. Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America. Vol. 2. NYU Press

    2009

  24. [32]

    Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

    2019

  25. [33]

    Christina N Harrington and Lisa Egede. 2023. Trust, comfort and relatability: Understanding black older adults’ perceptions of chatbot design for health infor- mation seeking. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

  26. [34]

    Christina N Harrington, Radhika Garg, Amanda Woodward, and Dimitri Williams

  27. [35]

    Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living disability theory: Reflections on access, research, and design. In Proceed- ings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–13

    2020

  28. [36]

    Romy Menghao Jia, Jia Tina Du, and Yuxiang Chris Zhao. 2021. Needs for relatedness: LGBTQ+ individuals’ information seeking and sharing in an on- line community. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 291–294

    2021

  29. [37]

    Yongnam Jung, Cheng Chen, Eunchae Jang, and S Shyam Sundar. 2024. Do We Trust ChatGPT as much as Google Search and Wikipedia?. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–9

    2024

  30. [38]

    Junhan Kim, Jana Muhic, Lionel Peter Robert, and Sun Young Park. 2022. De- signing chatbots with black americans with chronic conditions: Overcoming challenges against covid-19. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2022

  31. [39]

    Shamika Klassen, Sara Kingsley, Kalyn McCall, Joy Weinberg, and Casey Fiesler

  32. [40]

    Shamika Klassen, Joanna Judith Elizabeth Mendy, Mikayla Buford, and Casey Fiesler. 2024. Black to the Future-The Power of Designing Afrofuturist Technology with Black Women, Femmes, and Non-Binary People. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    James W Loewen. 2009. Sundown towns and counties: Racial exclusion in the south. Southern Cultures 15, 1 (2009), 22–47

    2009

  34. [42]

    Gustavo López, Luis Quesada, and Luis A Guerrero. 2018. Alexa vs. Siri vs. Cortana vs. Google assistant: a comparison of speech-based natural user interfaces. In Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human F...

    2018

  35. [43]

    Daniel Loureiro, Francesco Barbieri, Leonardo Neves, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Jose Camacho-collados. 2022. TimeLMs: Diachronic Language Models from Twit- ter. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Asso...

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Michael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wort- man Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Assessing the fairness of ai systems: Ai practitioners’ processes, challenges, and needs for support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  37. [45]

    Viraj Mahajan. 2024. 100+ incredible chatgpt statistics & facts in 2025. https: //www.notta.ai/en/blog/chatgpt-statistics

    2024

  38. [46]

    Arianna Manzini, Geoff Keeling, Nahema Marchal, Kevin R McKee, Verena Rieser, and Iason Gabriel. 2024. Should Users Trust Advanced AI Assistants? Justified Trust As a Function of Competence and Alignment. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Aqueasha Martin-Hammond, Sravani Vemireddy, and Kartik Rao. 2018. En- gaging Older Adults in the Participatory Design of Intelligent Health Search Tools. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Com- puting Technologies for Healthcare (New York, NY,...

    2018

  40. [48]

    Terika McCall, Muhammad Osama Ali, Fei Yu, Paul Fontelo, Saif Khairat, et al

  41. [49]

    I don’t think these devices are very culturally sensi- tive

    Zion Mengesha, Courtney Heldreth, Michal Lahav, Juliana Sublewski, and El- yse Tuennerman. 2021. “I don’t think these devices are very culturally sensi- tive. ”—Impact of automated speech recognition errors on African Americans. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 (2021), 725911

    2021

  42. [50]

    I’m treating it kind of like a diary

    Kayla Mullen, Wenhan Xue, and Manasa Kudumu. 2024. “I’m treating it kind of like a diary”: Characterizing How Users with Disabilities Use AI Chatbots. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–7

    2024

  43. [51]

    Il Bong Mun. 2024. A study of the impact of ChatGPT self-efficacy on the information seeking behaviors in ChatGPT: the mediating roles of ChatGPT characteristics and utility. Online Information Review (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Mikel K Ngueajio and Gloria Washington. 2022. Hey ASR system! Why aren’t you more inclusive? Automatic speech recognition systems’ bias and proposed bias mitigation techniques. A literature review. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 421–440

    2022

  45. [53]

    JMIR formative research 5, 8 (2021), e24393

    Development of a mobile app to support self-management of anxiety and depression in African American women: usability study. JMIR formative research 5, 8 (2021), e24393

    2021

  46. [54]

    Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16

    2020

  47. [55]

    OpenAI. 2025. ChatGPT: AI language model. https://chat.openai.com/ Accessed: 2025-01-19

    2025

  48. [56]

    Soyoung Park, Christa Thandi Mahlobo, and Jerrica Oliver Peets. 2022. Flourish- ing through traveling while Black: Unfiltered voices of Black travelers. Tourism Management 91 (2022), 104514

    2022

  49. [57]

    Yong Jin Park, Hoon Lee, SM Jones-Jang, and Yu Won Oh. 2022. Digital assistants: Inequalities and social context of access, use, and perceptual understanding. Poetics 93 (2022), 101689

    2022

  50. [58]

    Erezi Ogbo-Gebhardt and Oruaro Ogbo. 2024. Using a Large Language Model- Powered Assistant in Teaching: Stories of Acceptance, Use, and Impact among Ethnic Minority Students. (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Charnell Peters. 2021. Instagramming diasporic mobilities: the Black Travel Move- ment and differential spatial racialization. Communication, Culture & Critique 14, 2 (2021), 201–219

    2021

  52. [60]

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

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

    2020

  53. [61]

    Nitin Rane, Saurabh Choudhary, and Jayesh Rane. 2024. Gemini versus Chat- GPT: applications, performance, architecture, capabilities, and implementation. Performance, Architecture, Capabilities, and Implementation (February 13, 2024) (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Erin Reddick. 2025. ChatBlackGPT: A Conversational AI Model Optimized for Cultural and Social Contexts. https://chatblackgpt.com/ Accessed: 2025-01-18

    2025

  55. [63]

    Desmond Patton, Philipp Blandfort, William Frey, Michael Gaskell, and Svebor Karaman. 2019. Annotating social media data from vulnerable populations: Eval- uating disagreement between domain experts and graduate student annotators. (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Weiyan Shi, Ryan Li, Yutong Zhang, Caleb Ziems, Raya Horesh, Rogério Abreu de Paula, Diyi Yang, et al . 2024. Culturebank: An online community-driven knowledge base towards culturally aware language technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15238 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Stephen C Slota, Siqi Yi, Kenneth R Fleischmann, Jakki Bailey, and S Craig Watkins

  58. [66]

    C Estelle Smith, Shamika Klassen, Gale H Prinster, Chenhao Tan, and Brian C Kee- gan. 2024. Governance of the Black Experience on Reddit: r/BlackPeopleTwitter as a Case Study in Supporting Sense of Virtual Community for Black Users. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Int...

    2024

  59. [67]

    Katta Spiel, Kathrin Gerling, Cynthia L Bennett, Emeline Brulé, Rua M Williams, Jennifer Rode, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2020. Nothing about us without us: Investi- gating the role of critical disability studies in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2020

  60. [68]

    Ari Schlesinger, Kenton P O’Hara, and Alex S Taylor. 2018. Let’s talk about race: Identity, chatbots, and AI. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2018

  61. [69]

    Tonia Sutherland. 2019. Social media and the Black travel community: From autonomous space to liberated space. (2019). Exploring Culturally Informed AI Assistants: A Comparative Study of ChatBlackGPT and ChatGPT CHI EA ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2019

  62. [70]

    Jordan Taylor and Amy Bruckman. 2024. Mitigating Epistemic Injustice: The Online Construction of a Bisexual Culture. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    In TMS Proceedings 2021

    Methods for Eliciting Feedback about AI and Racial Equity: How Black and Latinx Youth Interact with Digital Assistants. In TMS Proceedings 2021. PubPub

    2021

  64. [72]

    Francesco Walker, Matteo Favetta, Linde Hasker, and Richard Walker. 2024. They Prefer Humans! Experimental Measurement of Student Trust in ChatGPT. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7

    2024

  65. [73]

    Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al

  66. [74]

    Catherine Knight Steele and Alisa Hardy. 2023. I Wish I Could Give You This Feeling”: Black Digital Commons and the Rhetoric of “The Corner. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 53, 3 (2023), 316–327

    2023

  67. [75]

    Boyd, and Brittany Johnson

    Hana Winchester, Alicia E. Boyd, and Brittany Johnson. 2023. Harmful Terms in Computing: Towards Widespread Detection and Correction. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (Melbourne, Australia) (ICSE-SEIS ...

    2023

  68. [76]

    experiment,

    Marty J Wolf, K Miller, and Frances S Grodzinsky. 2017. Why we should have seen that coming: comments on Microsoft’s tay" experiment, " and wider implications. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society 47, 3 (2017), 54–64

    2017

  69. [77]

    Ivan Traina et al. 2015. Participatory & Emancipatory Approaches in Disability Research. Possible allies for supporting active citizenship, civil rights and actions of social innovation. Considering Disability Journal 2 (2015), 1–21

    2015

  70. [78]

    Ruiyun Xu, Yue Feng, and Hailiang Chen. 2023. Chatgpt vs. google: A comparative study of search performance and user experience. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01135 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Xiao Zhan, Noura Abdi, William Seymour, and Jose Such. 2024. Healthcare Voice AI Assistants: Factors Influencing Trust and Intention to Use. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–37

    2024

  72. [80]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021)

    Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kimi Wenzel, Nitya Devireddy, Cam Davison, and Geoff Kaufman. 2023. Can voice assistants be microaggressors? Cross-race psychological responses to failures of automatic speech recognition. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2023

  74. [84]

    Jeffery Wu and Lim Chee Koon. 2012. Tangible social-media application for the elderly. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology. 1–4

    2012

  75. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems

    Addressing age-related bias in sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2018

  76. [2021]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–29

    More than a modern day Green book: Exploring the online community of Black Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  77. [2022]

    It’s kind of like code-switching

    “It’s kind of like code-switching”: Black older adults’ experiences with a voice assistant for health information seeking. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2022

  78. [2024]

    What Did You Say, ChatGPT?

    “What Did You Say, ChatGPT?” The Use of AI in Black Women’s HIV Self-Education: An Inductive Qualitative Data Analysis.Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 35, 3 (2024), 294–302

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.