The Perils of Agency: How Developers Perceive, Prioritize, and Address Risks in Agentic AI Products

Agentic AI systems act autonomously, use tools, adapt to context, and operate in complex real-world environments. However, these same characteristics can create or exacerbate product risks. We studied how industry developers (n=35) perceive, prioritize, and address the risks in their agentic AI products. We found that developers' perceptions of risk were closely tied to the qualities that made the product agentic, such as autonomy, tool use, and usage in a real-world context. Developers prioritized product and business risks before considering downstream societal risks like job displacement and end-user privacy. This prioritization also impacted developers' ability and motivation to mitigate agentic risks. Finally, developers lacked mature controls for containing agentic risks, often relying on constraining the same characteristics that make agents useful: e.g., autonomy and goal complexity. These findings reveal a capability vs. risk control tension in agentic AI development: developers need to address risks that emerge from agentic capabilities, yet they currently have limited support for doing so without constraining agentic functionality.

Promoting Critical Thinking With Domain-Specific Generative AI Provocations

The evidence on the effects of generative AI (GenAI) on critical thinking is mixed, with studies suggesting both potential harms and benefits depending on its implementation. Some argue that AI-driven provocations, such as questions asking for human clarification and justification, are beneficial for eliciting critical thinking. Drawing on our experience designing and evaluating two GenAI-powered tools for knowledge work, ArtBot in the domain of fine art interpretation and Privy in the domain of AI privacy, we reflect on how design decisions shape the form and effectiveness of such provocations. Our observations and user feedback suggest that domain-specific provocations, implemented through productive friction and interactions that depend on user contribution, can meaningfully support critical thinking. We present participant experiences with both prototypes and discuss how supporting critical thinking may require moving beyond static provocations toward approaches that adapt to user preferences and levels of expertise.

Human-Centered Privacy Research in the Age of Large Language Models

The emergence of large language models (LLMs), and their increased use in user-facing systems, has led to substantial privacy concerns. To date, research on these privacy concerns has been model-centered: exploring how LLMs lead to privacy risks like memorization, or can be used to infer personal characteristics about people from their content. We argue that there is a need for more research focusing on the human aspect of these privacy issues: e.g., research on how design paradigms for LLMs affect users' disclosure behaviors, users' mental models and preferences for privacy controls, and the design of tools, systems, and artifacts that empower end-users to reclaim ownership over their personal data. To build usable, efficient, and privacy-friendly systems powered by these models with imperfect privacy properties, our goal is to initiate discussions to outline an agenda for conducting human-centered research on privacy issues in LLM-powered systems. This Special Interest Group (SIG) aims to bring together researchers with backgrounds in usable security and privacy, human-AI collaboration, NLP, or any other related domains to share their perspectives and experiences on this problem, to help our community establish a collective understanding of the challenges, research opportunities, research methods, and strategies to collaborate with researchers outside of HCI.