arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2502.05324

Atlas of AI Risks: Enhancing Public Understanding of AI Risks

Edyta Bogucka·Sanja Šćepanović·Daniele Quercia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The prevailing methodologies for visualizing AI risks have focused on technical issues such as data biases and model inaccuracies, often overlooking broader societal risks like job loss and surveillance. Moreover, these visualizations are typically designed for tech-savvy individuals, neglecting those with limited technical skills. To address these challenges, we propose the Atlas of AI Risks-a narrative-style tool designed to map the broad risks associated with various AI technologies in a way that is understandable to non-technical individuals as well. To both develop and evaluate this tool, we conducted two crowdsourcing studies. The first, involving 40 participants, identified the design requirements for visualizing AI risks for decision-making and guided the development of the Atlas. The second study, with 140 participants reflecting the US population in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity, assessed the usability and aesthetics of the Atlas to ensure it met those requirements. Using facial recognition technology as a case study, we found that the Atlas is more user-friendly than a baseline visualization, with a more classic and expressive aesthetic, and is more effective in presenting a balanced assessment of the risks and benefits of facial recognition. Finally, we discuss how our design choices make the Atlas adaptable for broader use, allowing it to generalize across the diverse range of technology applications represented in a database that reports various AI incidents.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Edyta Bogucka, Sanja Šćepanović, Daniele Quercia. 2025-02-07. Atlas of AI Risks: Enhancing Public Understanding of AI Risks. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v12i1.31598

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning Password Best Practices Through In-Task Instruction

Users often make security- and privacy-relevant decisions without a clear understanding of the rules that govern safe behavior. We introduce pedagogical friction, a design approach that inserts brief, instructional interactions at the moment of action. We evaluate this approach in the context of password creation, a familiar task with clear quality criteria. We conducted a randomized study with 128 participants across four interface conditions that varied the depth and interactivity of guidance. We assessed three outcomes: (1) rule compliance in a subsequent password task without guidance, (2) accuracy on survey questions tied to password rules, and (3) behavior-knowledge alignment, which captures whether participants who correctly followed a rule also recognized it on the survey. Across the guided conditions, participants corrected most rule violations in the follow-up task and showed high behavior-knowledge alignment. Survey results suggested clearer advantages for some rule types, especially symbol related questions. These results position pedagogical friction as a lightweight intervention for security- and privacy-critical interfaces.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education

Individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often face significant barriers in computing education. In asynchronous learning environments, instructional videos can impose high extraneous cognitive load, often relying on assumptions about sustained attention and working memory that do not align with ADHD neurocognitive profiles. In this work, we evaluate a post-hoc video processing intervention that segments instructional content into single-instruction chunks followed by fixed-length pauses to reduce cognitive load. In a within-participants controlled study with 17 individuals with ADHD and 10 without, we find that the intervention has an equalizing effect. Although it improved performance for all participants, gains were larger for those with ADHD, reducing their errors and hesitations to levels comparable to those of participants without ADHD under the same intervention. These results align with the goals of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), by showing that cognitively-aligned, post-hoc instructional video modifications can reduce performance disparities across diverse neurocognitive profiles.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Human Driver Temperament and the Safety Impact of a C-V2X Denial-of-Service Flooding Attack in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic

Cooperative and connected automated vehicles (CAVs) rely on Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) messages to cross signalized intersections; a denial-of-service (DoS) flood that blocks SPaT forces CAVs into a fail-safe mode. Because human-driven vehicles share the intersection, the safety consequence depends not only on the attack and the CAV fail-safe policy, but on how the surrounding human drivers behave. We investigate this human-factors dimension with a coupled OMNeT++/INET (5G NR-V2X) and SUMO microsimulation of a signalized corridor, sweeping CAV market penetration (10-90%), four calibrated driver temperaments (cautious to aggressive) and two standards-based fail-safe policies, a minimal-risk maneuver (MRM) and an adaptive cruise control (ACC) keep-driving fallback, with each attack arm differenced against its policy-matched no-attack baseline. Temperament's effect on the attack is specific and modest rather than a blanket amplification. Aggressive surroundings worsen one metric, the hard-braking a keep-driving fail-safe forces on nearby drivers (p = 0.03), rising from near zero to +8 episodes/1000 veh-s. They appear to dampen rear-end conflicts, but only because the flood clears the queues aggressive drivers build, so the gain is in flow, not safety. On the attack's primary signatures, CAV red-light running and crossing conflicts, temperament has no detectable effect. It instead dominates baseline risk, producing a 13- to 18-fold cautious-to-aggressive gradient far larger than the attack itself, which acts through a channel already congested by CAV adoption. Human driver populations determine how dangerous the intersection is but do not systematically amplify this attack, so fail-safe design cannot assume a cautious test population bounds the risk.

cs.HC↗