-
Botender: Supporting Communities in Collaboratively Designing AI Agents through Case-Based Provocations
Authors:
Tzu-Sheng Kuo,
Sophia Liu,
Quan Ze Chen,
Joseph Seering,
Amy X. Zhang,
Haiyi Zhu,
Kenneth Holstein
Abstract:
AI agents, or bots, serve important roles in online communities. However, they are often designed by outsiders or a few tech-savvy members, leading to bots that may not align with the broader community's needs. How might communities collectively shape the behavior of community bots? We present Botender, a system that enables communities to collaboratively design LLM-powered bots without coding. Wi…
▽ More
AI agents, or bots, serve important roles in online communities. However, they are often designed by outsiders or a few tech-savvy members, leading to bots that may not align with the broader community's needs. How might communities collectively shape the behavior of community bots? We present Botender, a system that enables communities to collaboratively design LLM-powered bots without coding. With Botender, community members can directly propose, iterate on, and deploy custom bot behaviors tailored to community needs. Botender facilitates testing and iteration on bot behavior through case-based provocations: interaction scenarios generated to spark user reflection and discussion around desirable bot behavior. A validation study found these provocations more useful than standard test cases for revealing improvement opportunities and surfacing disagreements. During a five-day deployment across six Discord servers, Botender supported communities in tailoring bot behavior to their specific needs, showcasing the usefulness of case-based provocations in facilitating collaborative bot design.
△ Less
Submitted 9 February, 2026; v1 submitted 29 September, 2025;
originally announced September 2025.
-
PolicyPad: Collaborative Prototyping of LLM Policies
Authors:
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Tzu-Sheng Kuo,
Quan Ze Chen,
Inyoung Cheong,
Kenneth Holstein,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
As LLMs gain adoption in high-stakes domains like mental health, domain experts are increasingly consulted to provide input into policies governing their behavior. From an observation of 19 policymaking workshops with 9 experts over 15 weeks, we identified opportunities to better support rapid experimentation, feedback, and iteration for collaborative policy design processes. We present PolicyPad,…
▽ More
As LLMs gain adoption in high-stakes domains like mental health, domain experts are increasingly consulted to provide input into policies governing their behavior. From an observation of 19 policymaking workshops with 9 experts over 15 weeks, we identified opportunities to better support rapid experimentation, feedback, and iteration for collaborative policy design processes. We present PolicyPad, an interactive system that facilitates the emerging practice of LLM policy prototyping by drawing from established UX prototyping practices, including heuristic evaluation and storyboarding. Using PolicyPad, policy designers can collaborate on drafting a policy in real time while independently testing policy-informed model behavior with usage scenarios. We evaluate PolicyPad through workshops with 8 groups of 22 domain experts in mental health and law, finding that PolicyPad enhanced collaborative dynamics during policy design, enabled tight feedback loops, and led to novel policy contributions. Overall, our work paves expert-informed paths for advancing AI alignment and safety.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2026; v1 submitted 23 September, 2025;
originally announced September 2025.
-
SPICA: Retrieving Scenarios for Pluralistic In-Context Alignment
Authors:
Quan Ze Chen,
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Chan Young Park,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
When different groups' values differ, one approach to model alignment is to steer models at inference time towards each group's preferences. However, techniques like in-context learning only consider similarity when drawing few-shot examples and not cross-group differences in values. We propose SPICA, a framework that accounts for group-level differences during in-context example retrieval. SPICA…
▽ More
When different groups' values differ, one approach to model alignment is to steer models at inference time towards each group's preferences. However, techniques like in-context learning only consider similarity when drawing few-shot examples and not cross-group differences in values. We propose SPICA, a framework that accounts for group-level differences during in-context example retrieval. SPICA introduces three designs: scenario banks, group-informed retrieval metrics, and in-context alignment prompts. From an evaluation of SPICA on an alignment task collecting inputs from four demographic groups ($n = 544$), our metrics retrieve in-context examples that more closely match observed preferences, with the best prompt configuration using multiple contrastive responses to demonstrate examples. In an end-to-end evaluation ($n = 120$), we observe that SPICA is higher rated than similarity-based retrieval, with groups seeing up to a +0.16 point improvement on a 5 point scale. Additionally, gains from SPICA were more uniform, with all groups benefiting from alignment rather than only some. Finally, we find that while a group-agnostic approach can align to aggregated values, it is not most suited for divergent groups.
△ Less
Submitted 19 December, 2024; v1 submitted 16 November, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
Chain of Alignment: Integrating Public Will with Expert Intelligence for Language Model Alignment
Authors:
Andrew Konya,
Aviv Ovadya,
Kevin Feng,
Quan Ze Chen,
Lisa Schirch,
Colin Irwin,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
We introduce a method to measure the alignment between public will and language model (LM) behavior that can be applied to fine-tuning, online oversight, and pre-release safety checks. Our `chain of alignment' (CoA) approach produces a rule based reward (RBR) by creating model behavior $\textit{rules}$ aligned to normative $\textit{objectives}$ aligned to $\textit{public will}$. This factoring ena…
▽ More
We introduce a method to measure the alignment between public will and language model (LM) behavior that can be applied to fine-tuning, online oversight, and pre-release safety checks. Our `chain of alignment' (CoA) approach produces a rule based reward (RBR) by creating model behavior $\textit{rules}$ aligned to normative $\textit{objectives}$ aligned to $\textit{public will}$. This factoring enables a nonexpert public to directly specify their will through the normative objectives, while expert intelligence is used to figure out rules entailing model behavior that best achieves those objectives. We validate our approach by applying it across three different domains of LM prompts related to mental health. We demonstrate a public input process built on collective dialogues and bridging-based ranking that reliably produces normative objectives supported by at least $96\% \pm 2\%$ of the US public. We then show that rules developed by mental health experts to achieve those objectives enable a RBR that evaluates an LM response's alignment with the objectives similarly to human experts (Pearson's $r=0.841$, $AUC=0.964$). By measuring alignment with objectives that have near unanimous public support, these CoA RBRs provide an approximate measure of alignment between LM behavior and public will.
△ Less
Submitted 15 November, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
Democratic AI is Possible. The Democracy Levels Framework Shows How It Might Work
Authors:
Aviv Ovadya,
Kyle Redman,
Luke Thorburn,
Quan Ze Chen,
Oliver Smith,
Flynn Devine,
Andrew Konya,
Smitha Milli,
Manon Revel,
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Amy X. Zhang,
Bilva Chandra,
Michiel A. Bakker,
Atoosa Kasirzadeh
Abstract:
This position paper argues that effectively "democratizing AI" requires democratic governance and alignment of AI, and that this is particularly valuable for decisions with systemic societal impacts. Initial steps -- such as Meta's Community Forums and Anthropic's Collective Constitutional AI -- have illustrated a promising direction, where democratic processes could be used to meaningfully improv…
▽ More
This position paper argues that effectively "democratizing AI" requires democratic governance and alignment of AI, and that this is particularly valuable for decisions with systemic societal impacts. Initial steps -- such as Meta's Community Forums and Anthropic's Collective Constitutional AI -- have illustrated a promising direction, where democratic processes could be used to meaningfully improve public involvement and trust in critical decisions. To more concretely explore what increasingly democratic AI might look like, we provide a "Democracy Levels" framework and associated tools that: (i) define milestones toward meaningfully democratic AI, which is also crucial for substantively pluralistic, human-centered, participatory, and public-interest AI, (ii) can help guide organizations seeking to increase the legitimacy of their decisions on difficult AI governance and alignment questions, and (iii) support the evaluation of such efforts.
△ Less
Submitted 21 August, 2025; v1 submitted 14 November, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
PolicyCraft: Supporting Collaborative and Participatory Policy Design through Case-Grounded Deliberation
Authors:
Tzu-Sheng Kuo,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang,
Jane Hsieh,
Haiyi Zhu,
Kenneth Holstein
Abstract:
Community and organizational policies are typically designed in a top-down, centralized fashion, with limited input from impacted stakeholders. This can result in policies that are misaligned with community needs or perceived as illegitimate. How can we support more collaborative, participatory approaches to policy design? In this paper, we present PolicyCraft, a system that structures collaborati…
▽ More
Community and organizational policies are typically designed in a top-down, centralized fashion, with limited input from impacted stakeholders. This can result in policies that are misaligned with community needs or perceived as illegitimate. How can we support more collaborative, participatory approaches to policy design? In this paper, we present PolicyCraft, a system that structures collaborative policy design through case-grounded deliberation. Building on past research that highlights the value of concrete cases in establishing common ground, PolicyCraft supports users in collaboratively proposing, critiquing, and revising policies through discussion and voting on cases. A field study across two university courses showed that students using PolicyCraft reached greater consensus and developed better-supported course policies, compared with those using a baseline system that did not scaffold their use of concrete cases. Reflecting on our findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI systems to help groups more effectively bridge between abstract policies and concrete cases.
△ Less
Submitted 5 February, 2025; v1 submitted 23 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
Policy Prototyping for LLMs: Pluralistic Alignment via Interactive and Collaborative Policymaking
Authors:
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Inyoung Cheong,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
Emerging efforts in AI alignment seek to broaden participation in shaping model behavior by eliciting and integrating collective input into a policy for model finetuning. While pluralistic, these processes are often linear and do not allow participating stakeholders to confirm whether potential outcomes of their contributions are indeed consistent with their intentions. Design prototyping has long…
▽ More
Emerging efforts in AI alignment seek to broaden participation in shaping model behavior by eliciting and integrating collective input into a policy for model finetuning. While pluralistic, these processes are often linear and do not allow participating stakeholders to confirm whether potential outcomes of their contributions are indeed consistent with their intentions. Design prototyping has long advocated for rapid iteration using tight feedback loops of ideation, experimentation, and evaluation to mitigate these issues. We thus propose policy prototyping for LLMs, a new process that draws inspiration from prototyping practices to enable stakeholders to collaboratively and interactively draft LLM policies. Through learnings from a real-world LLM policymaking initiative at an industrial AI lab, we motivate our approach and characterize policy prototyping with four guiding principles. Because policy prototyping emphasizes a contrasting set of priorities compared to previous approaches, we envision our approach to be a valuable addition to the methodological repertoire for collaborative, pluralistic alignment.
△ Less
Submitted 17 March, 2025; v1 submitted 13 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
End User Authoring of Personalized Content Classifiers: Comparing Example Labeling, Rule Writing, and LLM Prompting
Authors:
Leijie Wang,
Kathryn Yurechko,
Pranati Dani,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
Existing tools for laypeople to create personal classifiers often assume a motivated user working uninterrupted in a single, lengthy session. However, users tend to engage with social media casually, with many short sessions on an ongoing, daily basis. To make creating personal classifiers for content curation easier for such users, tools should support rapid initialization and iterative refinemen…
▽ More
Existing tools for laypeople to create personal classifiers often assume a motivated user working uninterrupted in a single, lengthy session. However, users tend to engage with social media casually, with many short sessions on an ongoing, daily basis. To make creating personal classifiers for content curation easier for such users, tools should support rapid initialization and iterative refinement. In this work, we compare three strategies -- (1) example labeling, (2) rule writing, and (3) large language model (LLM) prompting -- for end users to build personal content classifiers. From an experiment with 37 non-programmers tasked with creating personalized moderation filters, we found that participants preferred different initializing strategies in different contexts, despite LLM prompting's better performance. However, all strategies faced challenges with iterative refinement. To overcome challenges in iterating on their prompts, participants even adopted hybrid approaches such as providing examples as in-context examples or writing rule-like prompts.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2025; v1 submitted 5 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
(A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advice
Authors:
Inyoung Cheong,
King Xia,
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of providing users with advice in a wide range of professional domains, including legal advice. However, relying on LLMs for legal queries raises concerns due to the significant expertise required and the potential real-world consequences of the advice. To explore \textit{when} and \textit{why} LLMs should or should not provide advice to users,…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of providing users with advice in a wide range of professional domains, including legal advice. However, relying on LLMs for legal queries raises concerns due to the significant expertise required and the potential real-world consequences of the advice. To explore \textit{when} and \textit{why} LLMs should or should not provide advice to users, we conducted workshops with 20 legal experts using methods inspired by case-based reasoning. The provided realistic queries ("cases") allowed experts to examine granular, situation-specific concerns and overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a concrete set of contextual considerations for LLM developers. By synthesizing the factors that impacted LLM response appropriateness, we present a 4-dimension framework: (1) User attributes and behaviors, (2) Nature of queries, (3) AI capabilities, and (4) Social impacts. We share experts' recommendations for LLM response strategies, which center around helping users identify `right questions to ask' and relevant information rather than providing definitive legal judgments. Our findings reveal novel legal considerations, such as unauthorized practice of law, confidentiality, and liability for inaccurate advice, that have been overlooked in the literature. The case-based deliberation method enabled us to elicit fine-grained, practice-informed insights that surpass those from de-contextualized surveys or speculative principles. These findings underscore the applicability of our method for translating domain-specific professional knowledge and practices into policies that can guide LLM behavior in a more responsible direction.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2024; v1 submitted 2 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Bringing Social Computing to Secondary School Classrooms
Authors:
Kianna Bolante,
Kevin Chen,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy Zhang
Abstract:
Social computing is the study of how technology shapes human social interactions. This topic has become increasingly relevant to secondary school students (ages 11--18) as more of young people's everyday social experiences take place online, particularly with the continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, social computing topics are rarely touched upon in existing middle and high school…
▽ More
Social computing is the study of how technology shapes human social interactions. This topic has become increasingly relevant to secondary school students (ages 11--18) as more of young people's everyday social experiences take place online, particularly with the continuing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, social computing topics are rarely touched upon in existing middle and high school curricula. We seek to introduce concepts from social computing to secondary school students so they can understand how computing has wide-ranging social implications that touch upon their everyday lives, as well as think critically about both the positive and negative sides of different social technology designs.
In this report, we present a series of six lessons combining presentations and hands-on activities covering topics within social computing and detail our experience teaching these lessons to approximately 1,405 students across 13 middle and high schools in our local school district. We developed lessons covering how social computing relates to the topics of Data Management, Encrypted Messaging, Human-Computer Interaction Careers, Machine Learning and Bias, Misinformation, and Online Behavior. We found that 81.13% of students expressed greater interest in the content of our lessons compared to their interest in STEM overall. We also found from pre- and post-lesson comprehension questions that 63.65% learned new concepts from the main activity. We release all lesson materials on a website for public use. From our experience, we observed that students were engaged in these topics and found enjoyment in finding connections between computing and their own lives.
△ Less
Submitted 17 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Case Repositories: Towards Case-Based Reasoning for AI Alignment
Authors:
K. J. Kevin Feng,
Quan Ze Chen,
Inyoung Cheong,
King Xia,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
Case studies commonly form the pedagogical backbone in law, ethics, and many other domains that face complex and ambiguous societal questions informed by human values. Similar complexities and ambiguities arise when we consider how AI should be aligned in practice: when faced with vast quantities of diverse (and sometimes conflicting) values from different individuals and communities, with whose v…
▽ More
Case studies commonly form the pedagogical backbone in law, ethics, and many other domains that face complex and ambiguous societal questions informed by human values. Similar complexities and ambiguities arise when we consider how AI should be aligned in practice: when faced with vast quantities of diverse (and sometimes conflicting) values from different individuals and communities, with whose values is AI to align, and how should AI do so? We propose a complementary approach to constitutional AI alignment, grounded in ideas from case-based reasoning (CBR), that focuses on the construction of policies through judgments on a set of cases. We present a process to assemble such a case repository by: 1) gathering a set of ``seed'' cases -- questions one may ask an AI system -- in a particular domain, 2) eliciting domain-specific key dimensions for cases through workshops with domain experts, 3) using LLMs to generate variations of cases not seen in the wild, and 4) engaging with the public to judge and improve cases. We then discuss how such a case repository could assist in AI alignment, both through directly acting as precedents to ground acceptable behaviors, and as a medium for individuals and communities to engage in moral reasoning around AI.
△ Less
Submitted 26 November, 2023; v1 submitted 17 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Case Law Grounding: Using Precedents to Align Decision-Making for Humans and AI
Authors:
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
From moderating content within an online community to producing socially-appropriate generative outputs, decision-making tasks -- conducted by either humans or AI -- often depend on subjective or socially-established criteria. To ensure such decisions are consistent, prevailing processes primarily make use of high-level rules and guidelines to ground decisions, similar to applying "constitutions"…
▽ More
From moderating content within an online community to producing socially-appropriate generative outputs, decision-making tasks -- conducted by either humans or AI -- often depend on subjective or socially-established criteria. To ensure such decisions are consistent, prevailing processes primarily make use of high-level rules and guidelines to ground decisions, similar to applying "constitutions" in the legal context. However, inconsistencies in specifying and interpreting constitutional grounding can lead to undesirable and even incorrect decisions being made. In this work, we introduce "case law grounding" (CLG) -- an approach for grounding subjective decision-making using past decisions, similar to how precedents are used in case law. We present how this grounding approach can be implemented in both human and AI decision-making contexts, introducing both a human-led process and a large language model (LLM) prompting setup. Evaluating with five groups and communities across two decision-making task domains, we find that decisions produced with CLG were significantly more accurately aligned to ground truth in 4 out of 5 groups, achieving a 16.0--23.3 %-points higher accuracy in the human process, and 20.8--32.9 %-points higher with LLMs. We also examined the impact of different configurations with the retrieval window size and binding nature of decisions and find that binding decisions and larger retrieval windows were beneficial. Finally, we discuss the broader implications of using CLG to augment existing constitutional grounding when it comes to aligning human and AI decisions.
△ Less
Submitted 19 June, 2025; v1 submitted 10 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Confidence Contours: Uncertainty-Aware Annotation for Medical Semantic Segmentation
Authors:
Andre Ye,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy Zhang
Abstract:
Medical image segmentation modeling is a high-stakes task where understanding of uncertainty is crucial for addressing visual ambiguity. Prior work has developed segmentation models utilizing probabilistic or generative mechanisms to infer uncertainty from labels where annotators draw a singular boundary. However, as these annotations cannot represent an individual annotator's uncertainty, models…
▽ More
Medical image segmentation modeling is a high-stakes task where understanding of uncertainty is crucial for addressing visual ambiguity. Prior work has developed segmentation models utilizing probabilistic or generative mechanisms to infer uncertainty from labels where annotators draw a singular boundary. However, as these annotations cannot represent an individual annotator's uncertainty, models trained on them produce uncertainty maps that are difficult to interpret. We propose a novel segmentation representation, Confidence Contours, which uses high- and low-confidence ``contours'' to capture uncertainty directly, and develop a novel annotation system for collecting contours. We conduct an evaluation on the Lung Image Dataset Consortium (LIDC) and a synthetic dataset. From an annotation study with 30 participants, results show that Confidence Contours provide high representative capacity without considerably higher annotator effort. We also find that general-purpose segmentation models can learn Confidence Contours at the same performance level as standard singular annotations. Finally, from interviews with 5 medical experts, we find that Confidence Contour maps are more interpretable than Bayesian maps due to representation of structural uncertainty.
△ Less
Submitted 20 December, 2023; v1 submitted 14 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Skin Deep: Investigating Subjectivity in Skin Tone Annotations for Computer Vision Benchmark Datasets
Authors:
Teanna Barrett,
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
To investigate the well-observed racial disparities in computer vision systems that analyze images of humans, researchers have turned to skin tone as more objective annotation than race metadata for fairness performance evaluations. However, the current state of skin tone annotation procedures is highly varied. For instance, researchers use a range of untested scales and skin tone categories, have…
▽ More
To investigate the well-observed racial disparities in computer vision systems that analyze images of humans, researchers have turned to skin tone as more objective annotation than race metadata for fairness performance evaluations. However, the current state of skin tone annotation procedures is highly varied. For instance, researchers use a range of untested scales and skin tone categories, have unclear annotation procedures, and provide inadequate analyses of uncertainty. In addition, little attention is paid to the positionality of the humans involved in the annotation process--both designers and annotators alike--and the historical and sociological context of skin tone in the United States. Our work is the first to investigate the skin tone annotation process as a sociotechnical project. We surveyed recent skin tone annotation procedures and conducted annotation experiments to examine how subjective understandings of skin tone are embedded in skin tone annotation procedures. Our systematic literature review revealed the uninterrogated association between skin tone and race and the limited effort to analyze annotator uncertainty in current procedures for skin tone annotation in computer vision evaluation. Our experiments demonstrated that design decisions in the annotation procedure such as the order in which the skin tone scale is presented or additional context in the image (i.e., presence of a face) significantly affected the resulting inter-annotator agreement and individual uncertainty of skin tone annotations. We call for greater reflexivity in the design, analysis, and documentation of procedures for evaluation using skin tone.
△ Less
Submitted 15 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Judgment Sieve: Reducing Uncertainty in Group Judgments through Interventions Targeting Ambiguity versus Disagreement
Authors:
Quan Ze Chen,
Amy X. Zhang
Abstract:
When groups of people are tasked with making a judgment, the issue of uncertainty often arises. Existing methods to reduce uncertainty typically focus on iteratively improving specificity in the overall task instruction. However, uncertainty can arise from multiple sources, such as ambiguity of the item being judged due to limited context, or disagreements among the participants due to different p…
▽ More
When groups of people are tasked with making a judgment, the issue of uncertainty often arises. Existing methods to reduce uncertainty typically focus on iteratively improving specificity in the overall task instruction. However, uncertainty can arise from multiple sources, such as ambiguity of the item being judged due to limited context, or disagreements among the participants due to different perspectives and an under-specified task. A one-size-fits-all intervention may be ineffective if it is not targeted to the right source of uncertainty. In this paper we introduce a new workflow, Judgment Sieve, to reduce uncertainty in tasks involving group judgment in a targeted manner. By utilizing measurements that separate different sources of uncertainty during an initial round of judgment elicitation, we can then select a targeted intervention adding context or deliberation to most effectively reduce uncertainty on each item being judged. We test our approach on two tasks: rating word pair similarity and toxicity of online comments, showing that targeted interventions reduced uncertainty for the most uncertain cases. In the top 10% of cases, we saw an ambiguity reduction of 21.4% and 25.7%, and a disagreement reduction of 22.2% and 11.2% for the two tasks respectively. We also found through a simulation that our targeted approach reduced the average uncertainty scores for both sources of uncertainty as opposed to uniform approaches where reductions in average uncertainty from one source came with an increase for the other.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-led Comment Moderation
Authors:
Shagun Jhaver,
Quan Ze Chen,
Detlef Knauss,
Amy Zhang
Abstract:
Online social platforms centered around content creators often allow comments on content, where creators moderate the comments they receive. As creators can face overwhelming numbers of comments, with some of them harassing or hateful, platforms typically provide tools such as word filters for creators to automate aspects of moderation. From needfinding interviews with 19 creators about how they u…
▽ More
Online social platforms centered around content creators often allow comments on content, where creators moderate the comments they receive. As creators can face overwhelming numbers of comments, with some of them harassing or hateful, platforms typically provide tools such as word filters for creators to automate aspects of moderation. From needfinding interviews with 19 creators about how they use existing tools, we found that they struggled with writing good filters as well as organizing and revisiting their filters, due to the difficulty of determining what the filters actually catch. To address these issues, we present FilterBuddy, a system that supports creators in authoring new filters or building from existing filter lists, as well as organizing their filters and visualizing what comments are captured over time. We conducted an early-stage evaluation of FilterBuddy with YouTube creators, finding that participants see FilterBuddy not just as a moderation tool, but also a means to organize their comments to better understand their audiences.
△ Less
Submitted 17 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.