Designing for Human-Agent Alignment: Understanding what humans want from their agents

Our ability to build autonomous agents that leverage Generative AI continues to increase by the day. As builders and users of such agents it is unclear what parameters we need to align on before the agents start performing tasks on our behalf. To discover these parameters, we ran a qualitative empirical research study about designing agents that can negotiate during a fictional yet relatable task of selling a camera online. We found that for an agent to perform the task successfully, humans/users and agents need to align over 6 dimensions: 1) Knowledge Schema Alignment 2) Autonomy and Agency Alignment 3) Operational Alignment and Training 4) Reputational Heuristics Alignment 5) Ethics Alignment and 6) Human Engagement Alignment. These empirical findings expand previous work related to process and specification alignment and the need for values and safety in Human-AI interactions. Subsequently we discuss three design directions for designers who are imagining a world filled with Human-Agent collaborations.

Farsight: Fostering Responsible AI Awareness During AI Application Prototyping

Prompt-based interfaces for Large Language Models (LLMs) have made prototyping and building AI-powered applications easier than ever before. However, identifying potential harms that may arise from AI applications remains a challenge, particularly during prompt-based prototyping. To address this, we present Farsight, a novel in situ interactive tool that helps people identify potential harms from the AI applications they are prototyping. Based on a user's prompt, Farsight highlights news articles about relevant AI incidents and allows users to explore and edit LLM-generated use cases, stakeholders, and harms. We report design insights from a co-design study with 10 AI prototypers and findings from a user study with 42 AI prototypers. After using Farsight, AI prototypers in our user study are better able to independently identify potential harms associated with a prompt and find our tool more useful and usable than existing resources. Their qualitative feedback also highlights that Farsight encourages them to focus on end-users and think beyond immediate harms. We discuss these findings and reflect on their implications for designing AI prototyping experiences that meaningfully engage with AI harms. Farsight is publicly accessible at: https://PAIR-code.github.io/farsight.

LLM Comparator: Visual Analytics for Side-by-Side Evaluation of Large Language Models

Automatic side-by-side evaluation has emerged as a promising approach to evaluating the quality of responses from large language models (LLMs). However, analyzing the results from this evaluation approach raises scalability and interpretability challenges. In this paper, we present LLM Comparator, a novel visual analytics tool for interactively analyzing results from automatic side-by-side evaluation. The tool supports interactive workflows for users to understand when and why a model performs better or worse than a baseline model, and how the responses from two models are qualitatively different. We iteratively designed and developed the tool by closely working with researchers and engineers at a large technology company. This paper details the user challenges we identified, the design and development of the tool, and an observational study with participants who regularly evaluate their models.

PromptInfuser: How Tightly Coupling AI and UI Design Impacts Designers' Workflows

Prototyping AI applications is notoriously difficult. While large language model (LLM) prompting has dramatically lowered the barriers to AI prototyping, designers are still prototyping AI functionality and UI separately. We investigate how coupling prompt and UI design affects designers' workflows. Grounding this research, we developed PromptInfuser, a Figma plugin that enables users to create semi-functional mockups, by connecting UI elements to the inputs and outputs of prompts. In a study with 14 designers, we compare PromptInfuser to designers' current AI-prototyping workflow. PromptInfuser was perceived to be significantly more useful for communicating product ideas, more capable of producing prototypes that realistically represent the envisioned artifact, more efficient for prototyping, and more helpful for anticipating UI issues and technical constraints. PromptInfuser encouraged iteration over prompt and UI together, which helped designers identify UI and prompt incompatibilities and reflect upon their total solution. Together, these findings inform future systems for prototyping AI applications.

ConstitutionMaker: Interactively Critiquing Large Language Models by Converting Feedback into Principles

Large language model (LLM) prompting is a promising new approach for users to create and customize their own chatbots. However, current methods for steering a chatbot's outputs, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, do not support users in converting their natural feedback on the model's outputs to changes in the prompt or model. In this work, we explore how to enable users to interactively refine model outputs through their feedback, by helping them convert their feedback into a set of principles (i.e. a constitution) that dictate the model's behavior. From a formative study, we (1) found that users needed support converting their feedback into principles for the chatbot and (2) classified the different principle types desired by users. Inspired by these findings, we developed ConstitutionMaker, an interactive tool for converting user feedback into principles, to steer LLM-based chatbots. With ConstitutionMaker, users can provide either positive or negative feedback in natural language, select auto-generated feedback, or rewrite the chatbot's response; each mode of feedback automatically generates a principle that is inserted into the chatbot's prompt. In a user study with 14 participants, we compare ConstitutionMaker to an ablated version, where users write their own principles. With ConstitutionMaker, participants felt that their principles could better guide the chatbot, that they could more easily convert their feedback into principles, and that they could write principles more efficiently, with less mental demand. ConstitutionMaker helped users identify ways to improve the chatbot, formulate their intuitive responses to the model into feedback, and convert this feedback into specific and clear principles. Together, these findings inform future tools that support the interactive critiquing of LLM outputs.

AI Alignment in the Design of Interactive AI: Specification Alignment, Process Alignment, and Evaluation Support

AI alignment considers the overall problem of ensuring an AI produces desired outcomes, without undesirable side effects. While often considered from the perspectives of safety and human values, AI alignment can also be considered in the context of designing and evaluating interfaces for interactive AI systems. This paper maps concepts from AI alignment onto a basic, three step interaction cycle, yielding a corresponding set of alignment objectives: 1) specification alignment: ensuring the user can efficiently and reliably communicate objectives to the AI, 2) process alignment: providing the ability to verify and optionally control the AI's execution process, and 3) evaluation support: ensuring the user can verify and understand the AI's output. We also introduce the concepts of a surrogate process, defined as a simplified, separately derived, but controllable representation of the AI's actual process; and the notion of a Process Gulf, which highlights how differences between human and AI processes can lead to challenges in AI control. To illustrate the value of this framework, we describe commercial and research systems along each of the three alignment dimensions, and show how interfaces that provide interactive alignment mechanisms can lead to qualitatively different and improved user experiences.

The Design Space of Generative Models

Card et al.'s classic paper "The Design Space of Input Devices" established the value of design spaces as a tool for HCI analysis and invention. We posit that developing design spaces for emerging pre-trained, generative AI models is necessary for supporting their integration into human-centered systems and practices. We explore what it means to develop an AI model design space by proposing two design spaces relating to generative AI models: the first considers how HCI can impact generative models (i.e., interfaces for models) and the second considers how generative models can impact HCI (i.e., models as an HCI prototyping material).

IMACS: Image Model Attribution Comparison Summaries

Developing a suitable Deep Neural Network (DNN) often requires significant iteration, where different model versions are evaluated and compared. While metrics such as accuracy are a powerful means to succinctly describe a model's performance across a dataset or to directly compare model versions, practitioners often wish to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence a model's predictions. Interpretability techniques such as gradient-based methods and local approximations can be used to examine small sets of inputs in fine detail, but it can be hard to determine if results from small sets generalize across a dataset. We introduce IMACS, a method that combines gradient-based model attributions with aggregation and visualization techniques to summarize differences in attributions between two DNN image models. More specifically, IMACS extracts salient input features from an evaluation dataset, clusters them based on similarity, then visualizes differences in model attributions for similar input features. In this work, we introduce a framework for aggregating, summarizing, and comparing the attribution information for two models across a dataset; present visualizations that highlight differences between 2 image classification models; and show how our technique can uncover behavioral differences caused by domain shift between two models trained on satellite images.

AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts

Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive potential on simple tasks, their breadth of scope, lack of transparency, and insufficient controllability can make them less effective when assisting humans on more complex tasks. In response, we introduce the concept of Chaining LLM steps together, where the output of one step becomes the input for the next, thus aggregating the gains per step. We first define a set of LLM primitive operations useful for Chain construction, then present an interactive system where users can modify these Chains, along with their intermediate results, in a modular way. In a 20-person user study, we found that Chaining not only improved the quality of task outcomes, but also significantly enhanced system transparency, controllability, and sense of collaboration. Additionally, we saw that users developed new ways of interacting with LLMs through Chains: they leveraged sub-tasks to calibrate model expectations, compared and contrasted alternative strategies by observing parallel downstream effects, and debugged unexpected model outputs by "unit-testing" sub-components of a Chain. In two case studies, we further explore how LLM Chains may be used in future applications.

Program Synthesis with Large Language Models

This paper explores the limits of the current generation of large language models for program synthesis in general purpose programming languages. We evaluate a collection of such models (with between 244M and 137B parameters) on two new benchmarks, MBPP and MathQA-Python, in both the few-shot and fine-tuning regimes. Our benchmarks are designed to measure the ability of these models to synthesize short Python programs from natural language descriptions. The Mostly Basic Programming Problems (MBPP) dataset contains 974 programming tasks, designed to be solvable by entry-level programmers. The MathQA-Python dataset, a Python version of the MathQA benchmark, contains 23914 problems that evaluate the ability of the models to synthesize code from more complex text. On both datasets, we find that synthesis performance scales log-linearly with model size. Our largest models, even without finetuning on a code dataset, can synthesize solutions to 59.6 percent of the problems from MBPP using few-shot learning with a well-designed prompt. Fine-tuning on a held-out portion of the dataset improves performance by about 10 percentage points across most model sizes. On the MathQA-Python dataset, the largest fine-tuned model achieves 83.8 percent accuracy. Going further, we study the model's ability to engage in dialog about code, incorporating human feedback to improve its solutions. We find that natural language feedback from a human halves the error rate compared to the model's initial prediction. Additionally, we conduct an error analysis to shed light on where these models fall short and what types of programs are most difficult to generate. Finally, we explore the semantic grounding of these models by fine-tuning them to predict the results of program execution. We find that even our best models are generally unable to predict the output of a program given a specific input.