The Inference Report

Ableist microaggressions remain pervasive in everyday interactions, yet interventions to help people recognize them are limited. We present an experiment testing how AI-mediated dialogue influences recognition of ableism. 160 participants completed a pre-test, intervention, and a post-test across four conditions: AI nudges toward bias (Bias-Directed), inclusion (Neutral-Directed), unguided dialogue (Self-Directed), and a text-only non-dialogue (Reading). Participants rated scenarios on standardness of social experience and emotional impact; those in dialogue-based conditions also provided qualitative reflections. Quantitative results showed dialogue-based conditions produced stronger recognition than Reading, though trajectories diverged: biased nudges improved differentiation of bias from neutrality but increased overall negativity. Inclusive or no nudges remained more balanced, while Reading participants showed weaker gains and even declines. Qualitative findings revealed biased nudges were often rejected, while inclusive nudges were adopted as scaffolding. We contribute a validated vignette corpus, an AI-mediated intervention platform, and design implications highlighting trade-offs conversational systems face when integrating bias-related nudges.

Responding to the surging but largely invisible use of generative AI in entrepreneurial framing, I advance Ghost Framing Theory (GFT) to explain how hybrid founder- and investor-genAI ensembles co-produce, contest, and recalibrate resonance in the rhetorical legitimation of new ventures. Building on scholarship in framing, micro-level legitimacy judgments, and sociomaterial affordances, I identify genAI rhetorical affordances (generativeness, extreme combinatorics, tone repertoire, velocity/energy and shared substratum) and theorize a recursive/iterative process model (ghost pitching, ghost screening, ghost relationship-building), configuring emergent resonance and legitimation. GFT builds new rhetorical framing theory for the age of genAI, connects research on human-AI collaboration with cultural entrepreneurship and extends affordance theory into multi-actor scenarios where affordance transitivity and visibility emerge as key considerations.

Ramaswamy et al. reported in \textit{Nature Medicine} that ChatGPT Health under-triages 51.6\% of emergencies, concluding that consumer-facing AI triage poses safety risks. However, their evaluation used an exam-style protocol -- forced A/B/C/D output, knowledge suppression, and suppression of clarifying questions -- that differs fundamentally from how consumers use health chatbots. We tested five frontier LLMs (GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3.1 Pro) on a 17-scenario partial replication bank under constrained (exam-style, 1,275 trials) and naturalistic (patient-style messages, 850 trials) conditions, with targeted ablations and prompt-faithful checks using the authors' released prompts. Naturalistic interaction improved triage accuracy by 6.4 percentage points ($p = 0.015$). Diabetic ketoacidosis was correctly triaged in 100\% of trials across all models and conditions. Asthma triage improved from 48\% to 80\%. The forced A/B/C/D format was the dominant failure mechanism: three models scored 0--24\% with forced choice but 100\% with free text (all $p < 10^{-8}$), consistently recommending emergency care in their own words while the forced-choice format registered under-triage. Prompt-faithful checks on the authors' exact released prompts confirmed the scaffold produces model-dependent, case-dependent results. The headline under-triage rate is highly contingent on evaluation format and should not be interpreted as a stable estimate of deployed triage behavior. Valid evaluation of consumer health AI requires testing under conditions that reflect actual use.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to power autonomous agents for complex, multi-step tasks. However, human-agent interaction remains pointwise and reactive: users approve or correct individual actions to mitigate immediate risks, without visibility into subsequent consequences. This forces users to mentally simulate long-term effects, a cognitively demanding and often inaccurate process. Users have control over individual steps but lack the foresight to make informed decisions. We argue that effective collaboration requires foresight, not just control. We propose simulation-in-the-loop, an interaction paradigm that enables users and agents to explore simulated future trajectories before committing to decisions. Simulation transforms intervention from reactive guesswork into informed exploration, while helping users discover latent constraints and preferences along the way. This perspective paper characterizes the limitations of current paradigms, introduces a conceptual framework for simulation-based collaboration, and illustrates its potential through concrete human-agent collaboration scenarios.

Users often struggle to locate an item within an information architecture, particularly when links are ambiguous or deeply nested in hierarchies. Information scent has been used to explain why users select incorrect links, but this concept assumes that users see all available links before deciding. In practice, users frequently select a link too quickly, overlook relevant cues, and then rely on backtracking when errors occur. We extend the concept of information scent by framing navigation as a sequential decision-making problem under memory constraints. Specifically, we assume that users do not scan entire pages but instead inspect strategically, looking "just enough" to find the target given their time budget. To choose which item to inspect next, they consider both local (this page) and global (site) scent; however, both are constrained by memory. Trying to avoid wasting time, they occasionally choose the wrong links without inspecting everything on a page. Comparisons with empirical data show that our model replicates key navigation behaviors: premature selections, wrong turns, and recovery from backtracking. We conclude that trial-and-error behavior is well explained by information scent when accounting for the sequential and bounded characteristics of the navigation problem.

Amidst the emergence of powerful intelligent technologies such as LLMs and text-to-image AIs that promise to enhance creative processes, designers face the challenges of remaining empowered and creative while working with these foreign digital partners. While generative AIs offer versatile, informative, and occasionally poetic outcomes, their lack of embodied knowledge presents an even greater challenge to designers in gaining fruitful outcomes, such as in the field of Digital Craftsmanship. In this project, three designers embarked on a three-month experimental journey with an intention to co-create with Google's LLM as a potential intelligent partner to investigate how it will influence the designers' creativity. We found that a power dynamic of agencies exists between the LLM and the designer, in which the designer can easily lose their creative agency. Regaining the designer's creative agency involves introspection into their own creative process, a structural understanding of the specific emerging technology involved, and deliberate adjustments to the dynamics of the human-technology relationship. We propose paying attention to the designer's inner world and parties of agencies when engaging with emerging intelligent technologies through three aspects: the sensitivity towards a creative process as cognitive activities; the active investigation into specific technology's capability; and the adjustment towards an appropriate working relationship between the designer and the emerging technology.