Ensuring the safety of Generative AI requires a nuanced understanding of pluralistic viewpoints. In this paper, we introduce a novel data-driven approach for analyzing ordinal safety ratings in pluralistic settings. Specifically, we address the challenge of interpreting nuanced differences in safety feedback from a diverse population expressed via ordinal scales (e.g., a Likert scale). We define non-parametric responsiveness metrics that quantify how raters convey broader distinctions and granular variations in the severity of safety violations. Leveraging publicly available datasets of pluralistic safety feedback as our case studies, we investigate how raters from different demographic groups use an ordinal scale to express their perceptions of the severity of violations. We apply our metrics across violation types, demonstrating their utility in extracting nuanced insights that are crucial for aligning AI systems reliably in multi-cultural contexts. We show that our approach can inform rater selection and feedback interpretation by capturing nuanced viewpoints across different demographic groups, hence improving the quality of pluralistic data collection and in turn contributing to more robust AI alignment.

Menstrual health education (MHE) in Pakistan is constrained by cultural taboos and inadequate formal curricula, leaving women with few trusted resources to lean on. In response to these challenges, we introduce a WhatsApp-based chatbot powered by a large language model (LLM) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), co-designed with Pakistani college women. Workshops (N=30) revealed key design requirements—support for Roman Urdu, use of subsidized platforms, and an expert-curated knowledge base. We then deployed the chatbot with 13 participants for two weeks (403 messages + interviews). Women used it to challenge cultural taboos, legitimize health concerns often dismissed as “normal”, and build reproductive health knowledge through iterative questioning. Yet, interactions also exposed tensions: reliance on cultural explanatory models, questions of trust and validation, and gendered persona of the chatbot itself. We contribute empirical insights, a stigma-aware design framework for culturally sensitive conversational AI, and a methodological lens foregrounding expert validation in intimate health domains.

Rapid adoption of generative AI has outpaced the infrastructure needed to red team systems responsibly. This workshop tackles a core tension: scaling AI red teaming while centering human expertise and well-being. We convene academic, industry, and nonprofit practitioners for two threads. (A) Vision: surface high-level goals and principles for effective, humane red teaming. (B) Build: identify opportunities to support human-AI red teaming, such as scenario libraries, role prompts for red teamers, and calibration methods that align automated efforts with human expertise. Through this workshop, we will develop a vision for the future of effective AI red teaming that leverages and protects human expertise while meeting the needs of evaluation at scale.

We present an ethnographic study of an alternative approach to data work, developed by a civic-tech initiative that builds datasets for training and benchmarking online safety systems. They aim to respond to online safety concerns from a feminist perspective, by building safety datasets collaboratively with those most impacted by online harms. In this paper, we examine how this approach aims to reorient data work as a site for repair and redress, and trace the struggles they encounter in the process. Specifically, we draw attention to the challenges and tensions involved in advancing just reward for data work and collective governance of AI datasets. Examining these challenges through an STS-informed lens of reparative justice and repair, we argue that the work of repairing data work (and AI) lies, fundamentally, in resetting the ties of accountability. At a time heightened emphasis on efforts like safety evaluations and red teaming to make AI more responsible, we highlight the need to confront foundational questions about how the humans involved in these efforts relate to the datasets and systems they help produce. A reparative lens demands that we interrupt prevailing norms of data work and place at their centre, not AI or datasets, but those most harmed by the neglect, oversight and exclusion animated in the current modes of dataset production. This, we argue, offers a bold vision for responsibility and contributes towards a critical agenda for building alternative futures of data and AI practice.

In machine learning, "ground truth" refers to the assumed correct labels used to train and evaluate models. However, the foundational "ground truth" paradigm rests on a positivistic fallacy that treats human disagreement as technical noise rather than a vital sociotechnical signal. This systematic literature review analyzes research published between 2020 and 2025 across seven premier venues: ACL, AIES, CHI, CSCW, EAAMO, FAccT, and NeurIPS, investigating the mechanisms in data annotation practices that facilitate this "consensus trap". Our identification phase captured 30,897 records, which were refined via a tiered keyword filtration schema to a high-recall corpus of 3,042 records for manual screening, resulting in a final included corpus of 346 papers for qualitative synthesis. Our reflexive thematic analysis reveals that systemic failures in positional legibility, combined with the recent architectural shift toward human-as-verifier models, specifically the reliance on model-mediated annotations, introduce deep-seated anchoring bias and effectively remove human voices from the loop. We further demonstrate how geographic hegemony imposes Western norms as universal benchmarks, often enforced by the performative alignment of precarious data workers who prioritize requester compliance over honest subjectivity to avoid economic penalties. Critiquing the "noisy sensor" fallacy, where statistical models misdiagnose cultural pluralism as random error, we argue for reclaiming disagreement as a high-fidelity signal essential for building culturally competent models. To address these systemic tensions, we propose a roadmap for pluralistic annotation infrastructures that shift the objective from discovering a singular "right" answer to mapping the diversity of human experience.

As AI technologies increasingly integrate into daily life, their deployment often overlooks the complexities of the communities they aim to serve. This gap is particularly acute for marginalized communities, where AI can exacerbate inequalities due to techno-solutionism - the tendency to frame technology as a one-size-fits-all solution. This Special Interest Group (SIG) will explore unexpected lessons from community-led AI initiatives, emphasizing strategies for meaningful collaboration, shared ownership, and equitable partnerships. Through discussions and storytelling, the SIG aims to advance community-centered approaches to AI development and foster a robust, sustained network of researchers and practitioners.

Ensuring the safety of Generative AI requires a nuanced understanding of pluralistic viewpoints. In this paper, we introduce a novel data-driven approach for interpreting granular ratings in pluralistic datasets. Specifically, we address the challenge of analyzing nuanced differences in safety feedback from a diverse population expressed via ordinal scales (e.g., a Likert scale). We distill non-parametric responsiveness metrics that quantify the consistency of raters in scoring varying levels of the severity of safety violations. Leveraging a publicly available pluralistic dataset of safety feedback on AI-generated content as our case study, we investigate how raters from different demographic groups (age, gender, ethnicity) use an ordinal scale to express their perceptions of the severity of violations. We apply our metrics across violation types, demonstrating their utility in extracting nuanced insights that are crucial for aligning AI systems reliably in multi-cultural contexts. We show that our approach can inform rater selection and feedback interpretation by capturing nuanced viewpoints across different demographic groups, hence improving the quality of pluralistic data collection and in turn contributing to more robust AI development.

Asia's Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) landscape is rapidly evolving, yet it faces distinct challenges in curriculum development, research establishment, and career navigation. This panel discussion, hosted by Asia SIGCHI Committee (ASC) at CHI2025, will bring together distinguished experts to address these challenges and explore strategies for fostering a robust and inclusive HCI community in Asia. Panelists will discuss the integration of culturally relevant content in HCI education, approaches to enhancing research visibility on international platforms, and initiatives to bridge gaps between academic training and industry expectations. Through an engaging discussion and audience interaction, the panel aims to identify actionable solutions, promote collaboration, and inspire future initiatives that strengthen HCI's growth across the region. Participants will gain valuable insights into overcoming systemic barriers while building sustainable and impactful HCI programs tailored to Asia's unique sociocultural dynamics. This panel seeks to advance the global relevance and contributions of HCI in Asia.

Generative AI image models have been increasingly evaluated for their (in)ability to represent non-Western cultures. We argue that these evaluations operate through reductive ideals of representation, abstracted from how people define their own representation and neglecting the inherently interpretive and contextual nature of cultural representation. In contrast to these 'thin' evaluations, we introduce the idea of 'thick evaluations': a more granular, situated, and discursive measurement framework for evaluating representations of social worlds in AI images, steeped in communities' own understandings of representation. We develop this evaluation framework through workshops in South Asia, by studying the 'thick' ways in which people interpret and assign meaning to images of their own cultures. We introduce practices for thicker evaluations of representation that expand the understanding of representation underpinning AI evaluations and by co-constructing metrics with communities, bringing measurement in line with the experiences of communities on the ground.

Understanding what constitutes safety in AI-generated content is complex. While developers often rely on predefined taxonomies, real-world safety judgments also involve personal, social, and cultural perceptions of harm. This paper examines how annotators evaluate the safety of AI-generated images, focusing on the qualitative reasoning behind their judgments. Analyzing 5,372 open-ended comments, we find that annotators consistently invoke moral, emotional, and contextual reasoning that extends beyond structured safety categories. Many reflect on potential harm to others more than to themselves, grounding their judgments in lived experience, collective risk, and sociocultural awareness. Beyond individual perceptions, we also find that the structure of the task itself – including annotation guidelines – shapes how annotators interpret and express harm. Guidelines influence not only which images are flagged, but also the moral judgment behind the justifications. Annotators frequently cite factors such as image quality, visual distortion, and mismatches between prompt and output as contributing to perceived harm dimensions, which are often overlooked in standard evaluation frameworks. Our findings reveal that existing safety pipelines miss critical forms of reasoning that annotators bring to the task. We argue for evaluation designs that scaffold moral reflection, differentiate types of harm, and make space for subjective, context-sensitive interpretations of AI-generated content.

Food delivery platforms have thrived under the empowerment of algorithmic technology, but the dominance of technology has largely overshadowed our understanding of delivery workers. This study delves into the in-depth dynamics between food delivery workers and the algorithms. Focusing on four core systems—navigation, time estimation, order distribution, and customer rating—we reveal how these supposedly efficient systems often challenge the practice and autonomy of delivery workers and uncover the creative strategies workers employ to outmaneuver algorithmic constraints. Our findings spotlight a critical tension between algorithmic control and worker autonomy, highlighting the urgent need for platforms to adopt more transparent, flexible, and worker-centered designs. By reframing how these systems interact with human labor, this research offers a fresh perspective on the future of gig economy platforms, urging stakeholders to rethink algorithmic fairness in a way that empowers workers rather than constrains them.

Current text-to-image (T2I) models often fail to account for diverse human experiences, leading to misaligned systems. We advocate for pluralistic alignment, where an AI understands and is steerable towards diverse, and often conflicting, human values. Our work provides three core contributions to achieve this in T2I models. First, we introduce a novel dataset for Diverse Intersectional Visual Evaluation (DIVE) – the first multimodal dataset for pluralistic alignment. It enable deep alignment to diverse safety perspectives through a large pool of demographically intersectional human raters who provided extensive feedback across 1000 prompts, with high replication, capturing nuanced safety perceptions. Second, we empirically confirm demographics as a crucial proxy for diverse viewpoints in this domain, revealing significant, context-dependent differences in harm perception that diverge from conventional evaluations. Finally, we discuss implications for building aligned T2I models, including efficient data collection strategies, LLM judgment capabilities, and model steerability towards diverse perspectives. This research offers foundational tools for more equitable and aligned T2I systems. Content Warning: The paper includes sensitive content that may be harmful.

Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning -- annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater sub-groups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly increased in size and apparent capabilities in the last three years, but their training data is largely English text. There is growing interest in multilingual LLMs, and various efforts are striving for models to accommodate languages of communities outside of the Global North, which include many languages that have been historically underrepresented in digital realms. These languages have been coined as "low resource languages" or "long-tail languages", and LLMs performance on these languages is generally poor. While expanding the use of LLMs to more languages may bring many potential benefits, such as assisting cross-community communication and language preservation, great care must be taken to ensure that data collection on these languages is not extractive and that it does not reproduce exploitative practices of the past. Collecting data from languages spoken by previously colonized people, indigenous people, and non-Western languages raises many complex sociopolitical and ethical questions, e.g., around consent, cultural safety, and data sovereignty. Furthermore, linguistic complexity and cultural nuances are often lost in LLMs. This position paper builds on recent scholarship, and our own work, and outlines several relevant social, cultural, and ethical considerations and potential ways to mitigate them through qualitative research, community partnerships, and participatory design approaches. We provide twelve recommendations for consideration when collecting language data on underrepresented language communities outside of the Global North.

AI systems crucially rely on human ratings, but these ratings are often aggregated, obscuring the inherent diversity of perspectives in real-world phenomenon. This is particularly concerning when evaluating the safety of generative AI, where perceptions and associated harms can vary significantly across socio-cultural contexts. While recent research has studied the impact of demographic differences on annotating text, there is limited understanding of how these subjective variations affect multimodal safety in generative AI. To address this, we conduct a large-scale study employing highly-parallel safety ratings of about 1000 text-to-image (T2I) generations from a demographically diverse rater pool of 630 raters balanced across 30 intersectional groups across age, gender, and ethnicity. Our study shows that (1) there are significant differences across demographic groups (including intersectional groups) on how severe they assess the harm to be, and that these differences vary across different types of safety violations, (2) the diverse rater pool captures annotation patterns that are substantially different from expert raters trained on specific set of safety policies, and (3) the differences we observe in T2I safety are distinct from previously documented group level differences in text-based safety tasks. To further understand these varying perspectives, we conduct a qualitative analysis of the open-ended explanations provided by raters. This analysis reveals core differences into the reasons why different groups perceive harms in T2I generations. Our findings underscore the critical need for incorporating diverse perspectives into safety evaluation of generative AI ensuring these systems are truly inclusive and reflect the values of all users.

Prior work has developed responsible AI (RAI) toolkits and studied how AI practitioners use such resources when practicing RAI. However, AI practitioners may not have the relevant skills or knowledge to effectively use RAI resources—particularly as pre-trained AI models have enabled more people to develop AI-based applications. In this paper, we explore current practices and aspirations for learning about RAI on-the-job, by interviewing 16 AI practitioners and 24 RAI educators across 16 organizations. We identify AI practitioners’ learning pathways for RAI, including information foraging and interpersonal learning; the orientations of RAI learning resources towards computational and procedural approaches to RAI; and aspirations for RAI learning, including desires for more sociotechnical approaches to understand potential harms of AI systems—aspirations that can be in tension with organizational priorities. We contribute empirical evidence of what and how AI practitioners are learning about RAI, and we suggest opportunities for the field to better support sociotechnical approaches to learning about RAI on-the-job.

Data annotation remains the sine qua non of machine learning and AI. Recent empirical work on data annotation has begun to highlight the importance of rater diversity for fairness, model performance, and new lines of research have begun to examine the working conditions for data annotation workers, the impacts and role of annotator subjectivity on labels, and the potential psychological harms from aspects of annotation work. This paper outlines a critical genealogy of data annotation; starting with its psychological and perceptual aspects. We draw on similarities with critiques of the rise of computerized lab-based psychological experiments in the 1970's which question whether these experiments permit the generalization of results beyond the laboratory settings within which these results are typically obtained. Do data annotations permit the generalization of results beyond the settings, or locations, in which they were obtained? Psychology is overly reliant on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (WEIRD). Many of the people who work as data annotation platform workers, however, are not from WEIRD countries; most data annotation workers are based in Global South countries. Social categorizations and classifications from WEIRD countries are imposed on non-WEIRD annotators through instructions and tasks, and through them, on data, which is then used to train or evaluate AI models in WEIRD countries. We synthesize evidence from several recent lines of research and argue that data annotation is a form of automated social categorization that risks entrenching outdated and static social categories that are in reality dynamic and changing. We propose a framework for understanding the interplay of the global social conditions of data annotation with the subjective phenomenological experience of data annotation work.