← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.13525 · v2
EJAI: Judgment-Preserving Civic AI for Data Center Environmental Justice
首次提交 2026-11-10 11:50
版本更新 2026-11-11 22:21
雷达观测 2026-11-13 11:11
摘要
Communities in the United States and around the world are contesting data centers, the physical infrastructure of AI. These disputes pose environmental justice issues: residents must weigh unevenly distributed burdens using evidence scattered across metrics, corporate claims, policy documents, and public testimony. A formative study with 10 users showed that dashboards and single-agent AI can settle questions before people examine that evidence. Here we present EJAI, a source-grounded system that links an interactive map, retrieved evidence, missing-data statements, and two stakeholder personas that allow people to inspect evidence and form their own policy recommendations. In a small functional benchmark of 21 queries, retrieved evidence supported 98.4% of factual claims and the system acknowledged missing evidence in 32 of 33 cases. Persona alignment carried a grounding cost: the Corporate Executive omitted some evidence that conflicted with its assigned priorities. In a within-subjects study, 15 participants acting as residents prepared for a simulated town hall. Some checked cited AI claims while treating map metrics as official, some made conditional recommendations with safeguards such as water-use disclosure, and some found the personas simplified or biased. Our results suggest that civic AI can support preparation for public reasoning when it makes evidence, gaps, and disagreement open to inspection, and that corpus imbalance and two-sided personas remain open justice concerns.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-11 22:21 · 最新观测版本
EJAI: Judgment-Preserving Civic AI for Data Center Environmental Justice
Communities in the United States and around the world are contesting data centers, the physical infrastructure of AI. These disputes pose environmental justice issues: residents must weigh unevenly distributed burdens using evidence scattered across metrics, corporate claims, policy documents, and public testimony. A formative study with 10 users showed that dashboards and single-agent AI can settle questions before people examine that evidence. Here we present EJAI, a source-grounded system that links an interactive map, retrieved evidence, missing-data statements, and two stakeholder personas that allow people to inspect evidence and form their own policy recommendations. In a small functional benchmark of 21 queries, retrieved evidence supported 98.4% of factual claims and the system acknowledged missing evidence in 32 of 33 cases. Persona alignment carried a grounding cost: the Corporate Executive omitted some evidence that conflicted with its assigned priorities. In a within-subjects study, 15 participants acting as residents prepared for a simulated town hall. Some checked cited AI claims while treating map metrics as official, some made conditional recommendations with safeguards such as water-use disclosure, and some found the personas simplified or biased. Our results suggest that civic AI can support preparation for public reasoning when it makes evidence, gaps, and disagreement open to inspection, and that corpus imbalance and two-sided personas remain open justice concerns.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗v1 · 2026-11-10 11:50
EJAI: Judgment-Preserving Civic AI for Data Center Environmental Justice
Communities in the United States and around the world are contesting data centers, the physical infrastructure of AI. These disputes pose environmental justice issues: residents must weigh unevenly distributed burdens using evidence scattered across metrics, corporate claims, policy documents, and public testimony. A formative study with 10 users showed that dashboards and single-agent AI can settle questions before people examine that evidence. Here we present EJAI, a source-grounded system that links an interactive map, retrieved evidence, missing-data statements, and two stakeholder personas that allow people to inspect evidence and form their own policy recommendations. In a small functional benchmark of 21 queries, retrieved evidence supported 98.4% of factual claims and the system acknowledged missing evidence in 32 of 33 cases. Persona alignment carried a grounding cost: the Corporate Executive omitted some evidence that conflicted with its assigned priorities. In a within-subjects study, 15 participants acting as residents prepared for a simulated town hall. Some checked cited AI claims while treating map metrics as official, some made conditional recommendations with safeguards such as water-use disclosure, and some found the personas simplified or biased. Our results suggest that civic AI can support preparation for public reasoning when it makes evidence, gaps, and disagreement open to inspection, and that corpus imbalance and two-sided personas remain open justice concerns.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗