Semantic Commit: Helping Users Update Intent Specifications for AI Memory at Scale

How do we update AI memory of user intent as intent changes? We consider how an AI interface may assist the integration of new information into a repository of natural language data. Inspired by software engineering concepts like impact analysis, we develop methods and a UI for managing semantic changes with non-local effects, which we call "semantic conflict resolution." The user commits new intent to a project -- makes a "semantic commit" -- and the AI helps the user detect and resolve semantic conflicts within a store of existing information representing their intent (an "intent specification"). We develop an interface, SemanticCommit, to better understand how users resolve conflicts when updating intent specifications such as Cursor Rules and game design documents. A knowledge graph-based RAG pipeline drives conflict detection, while LLMs assist in suggesting resolutions. We evaluate our technique on an initial benchmark. Then, we report a 12 user within-subjects study of SemanticCommit for two task domains -- game design documents, and AI agent memory in the style of ChatGPT memories -- where users integrated new information into an existing list. Half of our participants adopted a workflow of impact analysis, where they would first flag conflicts without AI revisions then resolve conflicts locally, despite having access to a global revision feature. We argue that AI agent interfaces, such as software IDEs like Cursor and Windsurf, should provide affordances for impact analysis and help users validate AI retrieval independently from generation. Our work speaks to how AI agent designers should think about updating memory as a process that involves human feedback and decision-making.

Imagining a Future of Designing with AI: Dynamic Grounding, Constructive Negotiation, and Sustainable Motivation

We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances -- dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation -- that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models that, if explicitly designed for, can support the process of design. Through design fiction, we then imagine a future interface as a diegetic prototype, the story of Squirrel Game, that demonstrates each of our three affordances in a realistic usage scenario. Our design process, terminology, and diagrams aim to contribute to future discussions about the relative affordances of AI technology with regard to collaborating with human designers.

ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing

Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.

Amortizing Pragmatic Program Synthesis with Rankings

In program synthesis, an intelligent system takes in a set of user-generated examples and returns a program that is logically consistent with these examples. The usage of Rational Speech Acts (RSA) framework has been successful in building \emph{pragmatic} program synthesizers that return programs which -- in addition to being logically consistent -- account for the fact that a user chooses their examples informatively. However, the computational burden of running the RSA algorithm has restricted the application of pragmatic program synthesis to domains with a small number of possible programs. This work presents a novel method of amortizing the RSA algorithm by leveraging a \emph{global pragmatic ranking} -- a single, total ordering of all the hypotheses. We prove that for a pragmatic synthesizer that uses a single demonstration, our global ranking method exactly replicates RSA's ranked responses. We further empirically show that global rankings effectively approximate the full pragmatic synthesizer in an online, multi-demonstration setting. Experiments on two program synthesis domains using our pragmatic ranking method resulted in orders of magnitudes of speed ups compared to the RSA synthesizer, while outperforming the standard, non-pragmatic synthesizer.