arXiv subjects

Dalia Ali

Publications and source records attributed to Dalia Ali.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Responsible GenAI Use During Active Armed Conflict: Evidence from Sudan's Emergency Response Rooms

Armed conflict can increase the value of Generative AI (GenAI) while undermining the conditions required for its responsible use. Yet the perspectives of community-based humanitarian responders working under these conditions remain underrepresented in responsible AI research. We examine GenAI use in Sudan's Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs), a community-led humanitarian network, through an exploratory survey of 89 respondents and 15 semi-structured interviews with GenAI users and non-users. War reconfigures GenAI's role, making it most useful where its outputs are hardest to verify. ERR responders turned to GenAI when conflict made human expertise difficult or dangerous to reach. However, participants cautioned that GenAI could not independently establish rapidly changing local conditions, and that relying on its outputs could lead to harmful decisions when human verification was difficult. Risks arose before GenAI was used. For some volunteers, carrying a phone or accessing the internet could expose them to danger. Others were concerned that sharing sensitive beneficiary or operational information with GenAI could put people at risk. Participants feared that AI-assisted reports could undermine their credibility with donors, whose funding sustains the food and medical aid ERRs provide. Access to GenAI was uneven, and volunteers using it sometimes relied on colleagues with relevant expertise or local knowledge to verify its results. Our findings show that responsible use of GenAI during conflict depends not only on model performance or individual adoption, but also on whether responders can safely access these tools, verify their outputs against local conditions, and recognize when limiting or avoiding GenAI is the more responsible choice.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AI Adoption Across Mission-Driven Organizations

Despite AI's promise, little is known about how mission-driven organizations (MDOs) adopt AI. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 experts and leaders within environmental, humanitarian, and development organizations across the Global North and South. We find that MDOs adopt AI selectively, with uses in content creation and data analysis, while maintaining human oversight for mission-critical applications. In case of conflicts between the organization's values and efficiency, participants consider sustainability, neutrality, and community trust as constraints that could limit or prevent AI adoption. Individual adoption of AI is not translated into organizational practice due to fragmented data infrastructure, lack of in-house expertise, inertia, ethical challenges, and dependency on vendors. Participants expected AI use in MDOs to involve institutional control over infrastructure, support for missions, and human-centered human-AI collaboration. We contribute an analysis on how MDOs manage AI adoption, identify barriers to responsible deployment, and provide recommendations for designing mission-aligned AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

How Should AI Safety Benchmarks Benchmark Safety?

AI safety benchmarks are pivotal for safety in advanced AI systems; however, they have significant technical, epistemic, and sociotechnical shortcomings. We present a review of 210 safety benchmarks that maps out common challenges in safety benchmarking, documenting failures and limitations by drawing from engineering sciences and long-established theories of risk and safety. We argue that adhering to established risk management principles, mapping the space of what can(not) be measured, developing robust probabilistic metrics, and efficiently deploying measurement theory to connect benchmarking objectives with the world can significantly improve the validity and usefulness of AI safety benchmarks. The review provides a roadmap on how to improve AI safety benchmarking, and we illustrate the effectiveness of these recommendations through quantitative and qualitative evaluation. We also provide workflow-oriented guiding questions with illustrative benchmark that help researchers and practitioners develop robust and epistemologically sound safety benchmarks. This study advances the science of benchmarking and helps practitioners deploy AI systems more responsibly.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AI Adoption Across a Multinational Workforce: Sociotechnical Conditions for GenAI Acceptance in Human Resources

Generative AI (GenAI) deployment in the workplace is accelerating rapidly. Nevertheless, questions of who adopts, who benefits, and who is left behind and why are still understudied. In this paper, we investigate these dynamics in the context of a multinational tech company transitioning from a legacy Human Resources (HR) search system to a GenAI-supported system, analyzing search log data, survey data (n=25), and ten semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Further, we find that employees' trust in GenAI answers was built through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide empirical evidence of workplace GenAI adoption during a live organizational transition, showing that adoption is influenced by factors such as situational fit, search literacy, and trust calibration. It is also further shaped by knowledge conditions such as the system's content quality, employee training, and guidance. Second, we translate these findings into design considerations for inclusive deployment and adoption in high-stakes environments such as HR. We argue that organizations should design systems considering the role and context-sensitive benefits they yield to different social groups. They also need to treat the organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure to improve the accountability and usability of GenAI systems

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Operationalizing Pluralistic Values in Large Language Model Alignment Reveals Trade-offs in Safety, Inclusivity, and Model Behavior

Although large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained using human feedback for safety and alignment with human values, alignment decisions often overlook human social diversity. This study examines how incorporating pluralistic values affects LLM behavior by systematically evaluating demographic variation and design parameters in the alignment pipeline. We collect alignment data from US and German participants (N = 1,095 participants, 27,375 ratings) who rated LLM responses across five dimensions: Toxicity, Emotional Awareness (EA), Sensitivity, Stereotypical Bias, and Helpfulness. We fine-tuned multiple Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Models using preferences from different social groups while varying rating scales, disagreement handling methods, and optimization techniques. The results revealed systematic demographic effects: male participants rated responses 18% less toxic than female participants; conservative and Black participants rated responses 27.9% and 44% higher on EA than liberal and White participants, respectively. Models fine-tuned on group-specific preferences exhibited distinct behaviors. Technical design choices showed strong effects: the preservation of rater disagreement achieved roughly 53% greater toxicity reduction than majority voting, and 5-point scales yielded about 22% more reduction than binary formats; and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) consistently outperformed Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) in multi-value optimization. These findings represent a preliminary step in answering a critical question: How should alignment balance expert-driven and user-driven signals to ensure both safety and fair representation?

cs.AI↗