Generative AI is expected to have transformative effects in multiple knowledge industries. To better understand how knowledge workers expect generative AI may affect their industries in the future, we conducted participatory research workshops for seven different industries, with a total of 54 participants across three US cities. We describe participants’ expectations of generative AI’s impact, including a dominant narrative that cut across the groups’ discourse: participants largely envision generative AI as a tool to perform menial work, under human review. Participants do not generally anticipate the disruptive changes to knowledge industries currently projected in common media and academic narratives. Participants do however envision generative AI may amplify four social forces currently shaping their industries: deskilling, dehumanization, disconnection, and disinformation. We describe these forces, and then we provide additional detail regarding attitudes in specific knowledge industries. We conclude with a discussion of implications and research challenges for the HCI community.

We present the results of an online survey of 1,221 Twitter users, comparing messages individuals regretted either saying during in-person conversations or posting on Twitter. Participants generally reported similar types of regrets in person and on Twitter. In particular, they often regretted messages that were critical of others. However, regretted messages that were cathartic/expressive or revealed too much information were reported at a higher rate for Twitter. Regretted messages on Twitter also reached broader audiences. In addition, we found that participants who posted on Twitter became aware of, and tried to repair, regret more slowly than those reporting in-person regrets. From this comparison of Twitter and in-person regrets, we provide preliminary ideas for tools to help Twitter users avoid and cope with regret.

Assessing the trustworthiness of information online is complicated. Literacy-based paradigms are both widely used to help and widely critiqued. We conducted a study with 35 Gen Zers from across the U.S. to understand how they assess information online. We found that they tended to encounter—rather than search for—information, and that those encounters were shaped more by social motivations than by truth-seeking queries. For them, information processing is fundamentally a social practice. Gen Zers interpreted online information together, as aspirational members of social groups. Our participants sought information sensibility: a socially-informed awareness of the value of information encountered online. We outline key challenges they faced and practices they used to make sense of information. Our findings suggest that like their information sensibility practices, solutions and strategies to address misinformation should be embedded in social contexts online.

The seamless integration of technology into the lives of youth has raised concerns about their digital safety. While prior work has explored youth experiences with physical, sexual, and emotional threats—such as bullying and trafficking—a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the myriad threats that youth experience is needed. By synthesizing the perspectives of 36 youth and 65 adult participants from the U.S., we provide an overview of today’s complex digital-safety landscape. We describe attacks youth experienced, how these moved across platforms and into the physical world, and the resulting harms. We also describe protective practices the youth and the adults who support them took to prevent, mitigate, and recover from attacks, and key barriers to doing this effectively. Our findings provide a broad perspective to help improve digital safety for youth and set directions for future work.

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) can effectively protect the privacy of online communication and has been adopted by several popular messaging apps. However, prior research indicates that many users have difficulty using E2EE tools correctly and confidently, as well as recognizing their security benefits, in part because of incorrect mental models. This paper takes a first step toward providing high-level, roughly correct information about end-to-end encryption to non-experts. In a lab study, participants (n=25) were asked about their understanding of E2EE before and after a tutorial we created, as well as which information they found most useful and surprising. Overall, participants’ understanding of the benefits and limitations of E2EE improved. They found information about confidentiality, risks and weaknesses most useful, surprising, and compelling to pass on to others. Some confusion about integrity and authenticity remained. The results provide insight into how to structure new educational materials for E2EE.

Online hate and harassment poses a threat to the digital safety of people globally. In light of this risk, there is a need to equip as many people as possible with advice to stay safer online. We interviewed 24 experts to understand what threats and advice internet users should prioritize to prevent or mitigate harm. As part of this, we asked experts to evaluate 45 pieces of existing hate-and-harassment-specific digital-safety advice to understand why they felt advice was viable or not. We find that experts frequently had competing perspectives for which threats and advice they would prioritize. We synthesize sources of disagreement, while also highlighting the primary threats and advice where experts concurred. Our results inform immediate efforts to protect users from online hate and harassment, as well as more expansive socio-technical efforts to establish enduring safety.