Resisting Humanization: Ethical Front-End Design Choices in AI for Sensitive Contexts

Ethical debates in AI have primarily focused on back-end issues such as data governance, model training, and algorithmic decision-making. Less attention has been paid to the ethical significance of front-end design choices, such as the interaction and representation-based elements through which users interact with AI systems. This gap is particularly significant for Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems, where humanizing design elements such as dialogue-based interaction, emotive language, personality modes, and anthropomorphic metaphors are increasingly prevalent. This work argues that humanization in AI front-end design is a value-driven choice that profoundly shapes users' mental models, trust calibration, and behavioral responses. Drawing on research in human-computer interaction (HCI), conversational AI, and value-sensitive design, we examine how interfaces can play a central role in misaligning user expectations, fostering misplaced trust, and subtly undermining user autonomy, especially in vulnerable contexts. To ground this analysis, we discuss two AI systems developed by Chayn, a nonprofit organization supporting survivors of gender-based violence. Chayn is extremely cautious when building AI that interacts with or impacts survivors by operationalizing their trauma-informed design principles. This Chayn case study illustrates how ethical considerations can motivate principled restraint in interface design, challenging engagement-based norms in contemporary AI products. We argue that ethical front-end AI design is a form of procedural ethics, enacted through interaction choices rather than embedded solely in system logic.

Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI

Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) predictions poses urgent legal and ethical challenges for AI-assisted decision-making. We examine two algorithmic interventions that act as guardrails for human-AI collaboration: selective abstention, which withholds high-uncertainty predictions from human decision-makers, and selective friction, which delivers those predictions together with salient warnings or disclosures that slow the decision process. Research has shown that selective abstention based on uncertainty can inadvertently exacerbate disparities and disadvantage under-represented groups that disproportionately receive uncertain predictions. In this paper, we provide the first integrated socio-technical and legal analysis of uncertainty-based algorithmic interventions. Through two case studies, AI-assisted consumer credit decisions and AI-assisted content moderation, we demonstrate how the seemingly neutral use of uncertainty thresholds can trigger discriminatory impacts. We argue that, although both interventions pose risks of unlawful discrimination under UK law, selective frictions offer a promising pathway toward fairer and more accountable AI-assisted decision-making by preserving transparency and encouraging more cautious human judgment.

Auditing a Dutch Public Sector Risk Profiling Algorithm Using an Unsupervised Bias Detection Tool

Algorithms are increasingly used to automate or aid human decisions, yet recent research shows that these algorithms may exhibit bias across legally protected demographic groups. However, data on these groups may be unavailable to organizations or external auditors due to privacy legislation. This paper studies bias detection using an unsupervised clustering tool when data on demographic groups are unavailable. We collaborate with the Dutch Executive Agency for Education to audit an algorithm that was used to assign risk scores to college students at the national level in the Netherlands between 2012-2023. Our audit covers more than 250,000 students from the whole country. The unsupervised clustering tool highlights known disparities between students with a non-European migration background and Dutch origin. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) we assess bias in a real-world, large-scale and high-stakes decision-making process by a governmental organization; (2) we use simulation studies to highlight potential pitfalls of using the unsupervised clustering tool to detect true bias when demographic group data are unavailable and provide recommendations for valid inferences; (3) we provide the unsupervised clustering tool in an open-source library. Our work serves as a starting point for a deliberative assessment by human experts to evaluate potential discrimination in algorithmic-supported decision-making processes.