跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+3已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-14 14:09 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-13 15:09 — 2026-11-14 15:09(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-14 14:09最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-14 14:07(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07931

How Generative AI Redefines Personalization and Diversity in the Newsroom

Cheng Yu, Jim Chi, Aaron J. Snoswell, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos

原文摘要

The tension between news personalization and information diversity has traditionally been understood as a matter of different content reaching different people, with diversity evaluated by the range of sources, topics, and perspectives to which audiences are exposed. Generative AI outdates this understanding, since it transforms personalization in two ways: how journalists adapt news to audiences and how the AI tools journalists use personalize content production to their own preferences. Drawing on 16 semi-structured interviews with media professionals across public service, commercial, and state-affiliated news settings, we examine how these practices reshape editorial judgment and the conditions under which news diversity is produced. We find that participants negotiate AI integration by maintaining authority over meaning while delegating aspects of content presentation. Yet the tools they adapt for their own work also mediate which sources and perspectives become available, introducing diversity-relevant decisions that remain largely invisible to organizational oversight. While participants anticipate diversity risks in audience-facing personalization, they predominantly interpret diversity-imposed limitations in their own tools as technical problems. As a result, decisions that shape news diversity increasingly occur before publication and across multiple versions of a story, where neither evaluation of published items nor human approval can readily observe them. Journalists thus remain formally responsible for outcomes shaped by decisions they cannot fully see or control. Our findings highlight that safeguarding news diversity requires looking beyond published content to the professional practices, infrastructures, and distributions of control that shape it.

cs.CY

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07874

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

Dalia Ali, Yearin Lee, Cheng Yu, Ro Encarnación, Alsanosi Adam, Danaé Metaxa, Ingmar Weber, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos

原文摘要

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 · cs.HC