arXiv AI By Hengzhi Ye

When No One Owns the Judgment: Accountability Under Contribution Dissolution in Human-AI Collaboration

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper examines how AI involvement in human collaboration can lead to unowned judgment, where decisions shaped by AI lack a clear accountable human or institution. Through cases of AI-assisted peer review and concealed AI use in creative work, it shows that contribution dissolution weakens responsibility and that fear of losing credit can deter disclosure. The authors argue for clearer distinctions of AI roles, identification of judgments needing human ownership, and conditions that allow disclosure without penalty, aiming to make AI-shaped contributions discussable, creditable, contestable, and repairable.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 18

Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks

The study investigates when work done with AI feels like one's own, using a qualitative survey where participants described tasks that felt owned versus not owned. Findings show that ownership depends on the collaboration process: people feel ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite, but disown work when merely approving AI suggestions. Ownership also extends to tasks where people set the vision but rely on AI for execution, yet loss of personal voice and lack of comprehension erode ownership, and willingness to disclose AI use is driven more by community norms than by pride.

By Megan Wei, Melanie Subbiah, Audrey Lee, Annya Dahmani, Dave Edwards, Helen Edwards, Ellie Pavlick
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

Expectations and Practices around AI Disclosure in CS Research

The paper examines AI disclosure policies in top computer science venues, finding them to be highly under‑specified. A survey of 109 researchers shows that disclosures are deemed most necessary for research design tasks and when human involvement is low, and it compiles researchers’ expectations for disclosure content. Analysis of 13,867 disclosure statements from EMNLP 2025 and ICLR 2026 reveals a significant mismatch between these expectations and actual practice, such as frequent disclosure of writing assistance despite it being considered less necessary.

By Arati Mohapatra, Danish Pruthi