Exploring Collaborative GenAI Agents in Synchronous Group Settings: Eliciting Team Perceptions and Design Considerations for the Future of Work

While generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is finding increased adoption in workplaces, current tools are primarily designed for individual use. Prior work established the potential for these tools to enhance personal creativity and productivity towards shared goals; however, we don't know yet how to best take into account the nuances of group work and team dynamics when deploying GenAI in work settings. In this paper, we investigate the potential of collaborative GenAI agents to augment teamwork in synchronous group settings through an exploratory study that engaged 25 professionals across 6 teams in speculative design workshops and individual follow-up interviews. Our workshops included a mixed reality provotype to simulate embodied collaborative GenAI agents capable of actively participating in group discussions. Our findings suggest that, if designed well, collaborative GenAI agents offer valuable opportunities to enhance team problem-solving by challenging groupthink, bridging communication gaps, and reducing social friction. However, teams' willingness to integrate GenAI agents depended on its perceived fit across a number of individual, team, and organizational factors. We outline the key design tensions around agent representation, social prominence, and engagement and highlight the opportunities spatial and immersive technologies could offer to modulate GenAI influence on team outcomes and strike a balance between augmentation and agency.

Seeing Like an AI: How LLMs Apply (and Misapply) Wikipedia Neutrality Norms

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on broad corpora and then used in communities with specialized norms. Is providing LLMs with community rules enough for models to follow these norms? We evaluate LLMs' capacity to detect (Task 1) and correct (Task 2) biased Wikipedia edits according to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. LLMs struggled with bias detection, achieving only 64% accuracy on a balanced dataset. Models exhibited contrasting biases (some under- and others over-predicted bias), suggesting distinct priors about neutrality. LLMs performed better at generation, removing 79% of words removed by Wikipedia editors. However, LLMs made additional changes beyond Wikipedia editors' simpler neutralizations, resulting in high-recall but low-precision editing. Interestingly, crowdworkers rated AI rewrites as more neutral (70%) and fluent (61%) than Wikipedia-editor rewrites. Qualitative analysis found LLMs sometimes applied NPOV more comprehensively than Wikipedia editors but often made extraneous non-NPOV-related changes (such as grammar). LLMs may apply rules in ways that resonate with the public but diverge from community experts. While potentially effective for generation, LLMs may reduce editor agency and increase moderation workload (e.g., verifying additions). Even when rules are easy to articulate, having LLMs apply them like community members may still be difficult.