Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 91 references

Generative AI as a Playful yet Offensive Tourist: Exploring Tensions Between Playful Features and Citizen Concerns in Designing Urban Play

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Generative AI can make cities more playful, but the same features that delight can also offend, and this paper maps that tension through two workshops with a situated image-to-image tool.

desk verdict A transparent qualitative study whose playful feature–concern map is useful but partly shaped by the authors' confirmatory theme refinement; worth engaging, not overclaimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16518 v2 pith:ELGAPTQX submitted 2025-01-27 cs.HC

Peng-Kai Hung , Janet Yi-Ching Huang , Rung-Huei Liang , Stephan Wensveen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIurbanplayplayablecitieshuman-AIinteractionimage-to-imagegenerationcitizenconcernstouristmetaphorqualitativeuserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that generative AI (GAI) can enrich urban life with playful experiences, but only if designers face the fact that the same features that delight can also offend. The authors built a mobile image-to-image tool called iWonder and ran two workshops: fourteen designers wandered through streets in Taiwan and the Netherlands to surface GAI's playful features and generate design ideas, then fourteen citizens critiqued and prototyped those ideas. The result is a map of six playful features, five citizen concerns, and three paired playful and offensive qualities. The paper's central proposal is the tourist metaphor: GAI behaves like an experienced but careless visitor who brings fresh perspectives while remaining unaware of local nuances, so cities should design with both sides in mind. If this is right, designers gain a structured vocabulary for making public AI interventions playful without eroding safety, cultural meaning, or trust.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a paired mapping: each playful quality is tied to an offensive counterpart. Generative agency, meaningful unpredictability, and social performativity are paired with dissonant agency, insensitive erosion, and creative vandalism; the tourist metaphor names the pair as a single character, a traveler who brings curiosity and fresh perspective while lacking local attunement. The instrument that produces the evidence is iWonder, a mobile image-to-image GAI tool with Reimage and Inpaint functions, backed by a commercially hosted generation API, that lets people photograph, prompt, and regenerate urban scenes in situ.

What would settle it

Run the same two-workshop protocol with a different GAI modality, such as text-to-image or video generation, in the same urban settings; if designers and citizens report a substantially different set of playful features and concerns, the paper's claim that these are GAI-level qualities is falsified. A second check is whether the five concerns still arise when prompts are given in the participant's first language with spelling or voice support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GAI-enabled urban play is defined by a tension: the same generative capacities that produce agency, meaningful unpredictability, and social performativity also produce dissonant agency, insensitive erosion, and creative vandalism. Concretely, the paper identifies six playful features: empowerment of visualization to share desired neighborhoods, empowerment to re-discover people-place relationships, empowerment to shuttle between multiverse and reality, encounter of defamiliarized places, whimsical urban montage, and pass-down co-improvisation. It also identifies five citizen concerns: fatigue and marginalization from misaligned content creation, navigational unsafety from scene rendering and defamiliarization, tensions between preserving and transforming socio-cultural significance, dissemination of disturbing modifications, and general bias, misinformation, and privacy issues. The argument is grounded in the situated experience of designers and citizens using iWonder in real urban contexts, and it culminates in the tourist metaphor as a design lens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one image-to-image tool, iWonder, stands for generative AI as a class in urban spaces: if its playful features and citizen concerns are specific to this tool rather than to GAI generally, the generalized findings and the tourist metaphor lose their scope.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers can use the six playful features as a building-block checklist and the five citizen concerns as a pre-deployment risk screen for GAI-enabled urban play.
  • Design ideas such as City Renovation Solitaire and Mirrorverse Switch become concrete prototypes for testing civic participation, storytelling, and cultural exchange.
  • The tourist metaphor gives urban stakeholders a common language for discussing GAI's double edge before committing to public deployments.
  • Citizen-suggested safeguards, including face blurring, immediate photo deletion, opt-out mechanisms, clear AI-generated labels, and prompt-language switching, become concrete design requirements.
  • Field-testing and multi-stakeholder workshops are recommended before deployment, since the paper finds that contextual tensions are difficult to capture in indoor settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the six playful features are truly GAI-level rather than iWonder-specific, the same two-workshop protocol should reproduce them with text-to-image, video, or multimodal GAI tools; that is a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The tourist metaphor may transfer beyond cities to any domain where an AI system offers outsider novelty with shallow local understanding, such as museum interpretation, community co-design, or organizational creativity tools.
  • The meaningful unpredictability finding suggests a design principle: build interfaces that let users hand control to the model while still giving citizens an easy stop or opt-out, an untested balance.
  • Prompt-language barriers point to an accessible fix: pairing an image generator with a large language model that refines imperfect prompts could reduce the fatigue and marginalization concern documented in the citizen workshop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-workshop qualitative study of iWonder, a mobile image-to-image GAI tool for urban play. Fourteen designers explored city spaces with the tool, identified six Playful Features, and produced six urban-play design ideas; fourteen citizens then evaluated the ideas and raised five Citizen Concerns. The authors present a tension map (Figure 2) linking features to concerns, distill three playful qualities (generative agency, meaningful unpredictability, social performativity) and three offensive qualities (dissonant agency, insensitive erosion, creative vandalism), and propose the metaphor of 'GAI as a playful yet offensive tourist.' The central claim is that these features and concerns reveal a dynamic interplay between users, GAI, and urban contexts, offering design considerations for GAI-enabled urban play.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a useful empirical contribution to HCI and urban-play research. The study is methodologically transparent in several respects: it reports participant recruitment and demographics, gives a positionality statement, includes extensive participant quotes and image examples, and explicitly seeks both positive and critical citizen perspectives. The two-workshop structure, with designers generating ideas and citizens evaluating them, is appropriate for surfacing tensions rather than only celebrations of GAI. The proposed 'tourist metaphor' is a thought-provoking interpretive synthesis that could help designers and city stakeholders think about the dual nature of GAI. The paper also documents the tool implementation and study procedures in enough detail to be replicable. The main risk is that the central pairing of features and concerns rests on an analysis step that selected for exactly those pairings, so the empirical grounding of Figure 2 needs to be demonstrated more directly.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4.1 and §6.4] The analysis procedure contains a confirmatory loop that materially weakens the evidential status of Figure 2. The authors state in §4.4.1 that after the citizen workshop tentative themes 'lacked connections to citizen concerns' and this 'prompted us to emphasize more on keeping the tensions alive within the themes, retaining underlying associations of playful features with risks.' Section 6.4 similarly reports that the authors 'realized that the candidate themes lacked links to the Playful Features' and therefore 'revisit[ed] the codes representing positive and negative citizen comments and examine how they were (not) connected to specific Playful Features, followed by theme reorganization and refinement.' A procedure that reorganizes themes until connections appear can illustrate tensions, but it cannot by itself establish that those pairings are grounded in participant experiences. Because the playful qualities, the offensive qualities, and the tourist metaphor are all built on these pairings, the paper should either report the pre-refinement themes and the specific code-to-feature links that survived the refinement, or validate the pairings through independent coding or member checking.
  2. [§3.1 and §5.1] The central claims are phrased about 'GAI' in the abstract and throughout the discussion, but all empirical material comes from a single image-to-image tool implemented with the Stability AI REST API. Several features, especially 'whimsical urban montage' (F5), depend on the specific failure modes, randomness, and training data of Stable Diffusion and may not extend to LLM-based or text-to-image GAI. To support the general claim, the authors should either reframe the findings as being about image-to-image GAI tools, or add comparative observations with at least one other GAI modality and explicitly state how the playful features and concerns vary across modalities. As written, the scope of the generalization is overstated.
  3. [§5.1, F1–F3] The first three playful features all share the title stem 'Empowerment of Visualization,' and the distinctions among them—sharing desired neighborhoods, re-discovering people-place relationships, and shuttling between multiverse and reality—appear to be analytical subdivisions of one capability rather than independent features. This becomes load-bearing in Figure 2, where these three features are paired with different citizen concerns; if the features are not empirically separable, those pairings may be artifacts of thematic boundary-drawing rather than genuine relationships in the data. The authors should show the participant quotes and codes that distinguish F1 from F2 and F3, or collapse the features and adjust Figure 2 accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1.5 and §5.1.6] Participant identifiers are inconsistent: §5.1.5 uses 'P3, P14' and §5.1.6 uses 'P9' instead of the DP-prefixed identifiers used elsewhere; please standardize.
  2. [§7.1] There is a typo in the phrase 'experiment wtih' which should read 'experiment with.'
  3. [§6.5.2] The identifier 'C10' should be 'CP10' for consistency with the other citizen-participant labels.
  4. [§6.5.2] The participant quotation contains 'Walk to Pain,' which is presumably a typo for 'Walk to Paint'; please verify against the transcript or indicate if this is an intentional participant wording.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Figure 2 feature–concern pairings are partly produced by a confirmatory thematic loop, not independently discovered.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4.1 (Analysis Procedure), reflective moment 3]
    "After the citizen workshop, we found that tentative themes lacked connections to citizen concerns, which inadequately addressed our analytical goal. This reflection prompted us to emphasize more on keeping the tensions alive within the themes, retaining underlying associations of playful features with risks and avoiding them being one-sidedly positive or idealized."

    The Playful Features are finalized only after the citizen workshop and after an explicit decision to "keep tensions alive" by retaining associations with risks. These features are then presented in Figure 2 as the empirical basis for the claimed "dynamic interplay" and the paired playful and offensive qualities. Because the analytic goal already included surfacing those tensions, the feature–concern pairings are in part selection criteria built into the themes rather than discoveries that arise independently from participant data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.4 (Analysis), final iterations]
    "For instance, we realized that the candidate themes lacked links to the Playful Features, which insufficiently unveiled tensions of GAI's playfulness in urban situations. This realization led us to revisit the codes representing positive and negative citizen comments and examine how they were (not) connected to specific Playful Features, followed by theme reorganization and refinement."

    The Citizen Concerns (C1–C5) and their Figure 2 pairings are reorganized specifically so that each concern is connected to specific Playful Features. The paper then reports these pairings as findings that "reveal the dynamic interplay between users, GAI, and urban contexts" (Abstract). A procedure that reorganizes themes until the desired links appear cannot establish that those links pre-existed in the data; the central relational claim is partly constituted by the confirmatory loop.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical qualitative study, not a formal derivation, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The Playful Features come from designer workshops and the Citizen Concerns from a separate citizen workshop, with substantial participant quotes and artifacts presented as evidence. The self-citations (e.g., [19,33]) are normal prior work and are not load-bearing. However, two explicitly reported analysis steps make the central claim partially circular. In Section 4.4.1 the researchers deliberately revised tentative themes to "keep tensions alive," retaining associations between playful features and risks after the citizen workshop. In Section 6.4 they revisited citizen codes to ensure connections to the now-finalized Playful Features and reorganized themes accordingly. The Figure 2 mapping, the playful/offensive qualities, and the tourist metaphor all rest on these pairings. Since the pairings were used as selection criteria during theme reorganization, presenting them as discovered empirical relationships overstates their independence. This is not a full reduction-by-construction: the underlying codes and participant statements exist, and the features and concerns are separately grounded. The circularity is therefore partial, affecting the confidence in the specific playfulness/offensiveness links rather than the entire dataset.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on two domain assumptions, the validity of the play-qualities lens and the sufficiency of self-report data, plus one ad-hoc tool assumption, that iWonder represents GAI for urban play. No free parameters or invented empirical entities are introduced; the tourist metaphor is an interpretive framing rather than a mechanistic entity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The urban play qualities and play potentials framework from Altarriba et al. [2] is a valid lens for identifying playful features.
    Section 4.3.1 requires participants to read [2] and the authors use its four play qualities to structure ideation, so the results are conditioned on that framework.
  • domain assumption Self-reports from 14 designers and 14 citizens, interpreted through reflexive thematic analysis, are sufficient evidence for the described playful features and concerns.
    Sections 4.4.1 and 6.4 treat interview transcripts and workshop discussions as the data; no behavioral, longitudinal, or independent validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The image-to-image GAI tool iWonder, built on Stability AI APIs, represents GAI capabilities relevant to urban play.
    Section 3.1 describes only this tool, while Section 5.1 generalizes findings to 'GAI in urban spaces'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative AI as a Playful yet Offensive Tourist: Exploring Tensions Between Playful Features and Citizen Concerns in Designing Urban Play." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELGAPTQX

@misc{pith2026250116518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative AI as a Playful yet Offensive Tourist: Exploring Tensions Between Playful Features and Citizen Concerns in Designing Urban Play},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELGAPTQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16518}
}
read the original abstract

Play is pivotal in fostering the emotional, social, and cultural dimensions of urban spaces. While generative AI (GAI) potentially supports playful urban interaction, a balanced and critical approach to the design opportunities and challenges is needed. This work develops iWonder, an image-to-image GAI tool engaging fourteen designers in urban explorations to identify GAI's playful features and create design ideas. Fourteen citizens then evaluated these ideas, providing expectations and critical concerns from a bottom-up perspective. Our findings reveal the dynamic interplay between users, GAI, and urban contexts, highlighting GAI's potential to facilitate playful urban experiences through generative agency, meaningful unpredictability, social performativity, and the associated offensive qualities. We propose design considerations to address citizen concerns and the `tourist metaphor' to deepen our understanding of GAI's impact, offering insights to enhance cities' socio-cultural fabric. Overall, this research contributes to the effort to harness GAI's capabilities for urban enrichment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The interfaces of our image-to-image GAI tool: iWonder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Summary Illustrating the Tensions of GAI-enabled Urban Play. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Each of them received a compensation of €30. We use the abbreviation DP to refer to designer participants in the pa￾per (e.g., DP1 means designer participant 1). They have previous design experience related to urban interaction or human–AI inter￾action projects. We divided them into four groups for the design exploration. The first two groups, comprising DP1-4 and DP11-14, conducted their exploration in the Netherla… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Backgrounds of Designer Participants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of the canvas in the ideation session. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: DP8 painted over the unsightly signage on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: DP1 rediscovered the city’s characteristics through modifying photos—removing landmarks to create ordinary scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DP5 reflected on her impression of the city after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DP2 altered Dutch scenes, with the generated moun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: DP10 and DP1 defamiliarized the places by transforming the trees into Japanese buildings and characters (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: DP11 intended to depict people playing hide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The posters of the design ideas “City Renovation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The posters of the design ideas “Mirrorverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The Backgrounds of Citizen Participants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Top: CP6 changed a clutter of bikes into a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CP7 and CP9 attempted thrice to generate a face eating shrimp, but the results only included shrimp and eyes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Generated images reconfigured socio-cultural elements. Top: CP5 added Pikachu to a Buddha statue and the crowds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left: iWonder depicted a realistic explosion resem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mousa Al-kfairy, Dheya Mustafa, Nir Kshetri, Mazen Insiew, and Omar Alfandi

  2. [2]

    Ferran Altarriba Bertran, Laura Bisbe Armengol, Cameron Cooke, Ivy Chen, Victor Dong, Binaisha Dastoor, Kelsea Tadano, Fyez Dean, Jessalyn Wang, Adrià Altarriba Bertran, Jared Duval, and Katherine Isbister. 2022. Co-Imagining the Future of Playable Cities: A Bottom-Up, Multi-Stakeholder Speculative Inquiry into the Playful Potential of Urban Technology. I...

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Cristina Ampatzidou, Katharina Gugerell, Teodora Constantinescu, Oswald De- visch, Martina Jauschneg, and Martin Berger. 2018. All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance. Urban Planning 3, 1 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Charbel Aoun. 2013. The Smart City Cornerstone: Urban Efficiency . Technical Report. Schneider Electric

    2013

  5. [5]

    Koichi Araake, Michinari Kono, Eiji Iwata, and Norio Sasaki. 2021. Playful Engagement for Public Spaces: A Case Study on a Mall Escalator. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, ISS, Article 498 (nov 2021), 19 pages. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3488543

    work page doi:10.1145/3488543 2021

  6. [6]

    Hritik Bansal, Da Yin, Masoud Monajatipoor, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022. How well can Text-to-Image Generative Models understand Ethical Natural Language Inter- ventions?. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.88 2022

  7. [7]

    Steve Benford, Carsten Magerkurth, and Peter Ljungstrand. 2005. Bridging the physical and digital in pervasive gaming. Commun. ACM 48, 3 (mar 2005), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047671.1047704

    work page arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Heidt, Nick Merrill, James Pierce, and Joseph Lindley

    Jesse Josua Benjamin, Heidi Biggs, Arne Berger, Julija Rukanskaitundefined, Michael B. Heidt, Nick Merrill, James Pierce, and Joseph Lindley. 2023. The Entoptic Field Camera as Metaphor-Driven Research-through-Design with AI Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Associat...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Charlotte Bird, Eddie Ungless, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh. 2023. Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Models. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Montréal, QC, Canada) (AIES ’23) . As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Mark Blythe. 2023. Artificial Design Fiction: Using AI as a Material for Pastiche Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (Mindtrek ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195–206. https://doi.or...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Nico Brand, William Odom, and Samuel Barnett. 2023. Envisioning and Un- derstanding Orientations to Introspective AI: Exploring a Design Space with Meta.Aware. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Associa...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Russell Brandom. 2024. Brazil’s Flood Disaster Set Off a Torrent of AI Misinfor- mation. https://restofworld.org/2024/exporter-brazil-floods-ai-misinformation/ Generative AI as a Playful yet Offensive Tourist CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2024

  5. [13]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597. https: //doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

    2019

  6. [14]

    Barry Brown and Oskar Juhlin. 2015. Enjoying machines. MIT Press

    2015

  7. [15]

    David Byrne. 2022. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity 56, 3 (2022), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Mauricio Capra, Milena Radenkovic, Steve Benford, Leif Oppermann, Adam Drozd, and Martin Flintham. 2005. The multimedia challenges raised by perva- sive games. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Hilton, Singapore) (MULTIMEDIA ’05). As...

    2005

  9. [17]

    Marcus Carter and Ben Egliston. 2020. Ethical Implications of Emerging Mixed Re- ality Technologies. Technical Report. the Socio-Tech Futures Lab and Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Sydney NSW. https://hdl.handle.ne...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Louis Chew, Lian Loke, and Luke Hespanhol. 2021. A Preliminary Design Vo- cabulary for Interactive Urban Play: Analysing and Composing Design Con- figurations for Playful Digital Placemaking. In Proceedings of the 32nd Aus- tralian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Syd...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Li-Yuan Chiou, Peng-Kai Hung, Rung-Huei Liang, and Chun-Teng Wang. 2023. Designing with AI: An Exploration of Co-Ideation with Image Generators. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (DIS ’23). Association for Computing M...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Yoram Chisik, Anton Nijholt, Ben Schouten, and Mattia Thibault. 2022. Urban Play and the Playable City: A Critical Perspective. Frontiers in Computer Science 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.806494

    2022

  13. [21]

    Chun Chu-Ke and Yujie Dong. 2024. Misinformation and Literacies in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Overview and a Call for Future Research. Emerging Media 2, 1 (2024), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241240285

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Renata Paola Dameri and Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.). 2014. Smart City: How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space . Springer Cham

    2014

  15. [23]

    Hai Dang, Lukas Mecke, Florian Lehmann, Sven Goller, and Daniel Buschek. 2022. How to Prompt? Opportunities and Challenges of Zero- and Few-Shot Learning for Human-AI Interaction in Creative Applications of Generative Models. ArXiv abs/2209.01390 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ziv Epstein, Hope Schroeder, and Dava Newman. 2022. When Happy Accidents Spark Creativity: Bringing Collaborative Speculation to Life with Generative AI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC ’22). 334–338

    2022

  17. [25]

    Patrick Tobias Fischer, Christian Zöllner, and Eva Hornecker. 2010. VR/Urban: Spread.gun—Design process and challenges in developing a shared encounter for media facades. In Proceedings of British HCI 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Martin Flintham, Steve Benford, Rob Anastasi, Terry Hemmings, Andy Crabtree, Chris Greenhalgh, Nick Tandavanitj, Matt Adams, and Ju Row-Farr. 2003. Where on-line meets on the streets: experiences with mobile mixed reality games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human...

    2003

  19. [27]

    Being Eroded, Piece by Piece

    Kexue Fu, Ruishan Wu, Yuying Tang, Yixin Chen, Bowen Liu, and RAY LC. 2024. "Being Eroded, Piece by Piece": Enhancing Engagement and Storytelling in Cul- tural Heritage Dissemination by Exhibiting GenAI Co-Creation Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactiv...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rohan Goswami. 2023. Adobe Launches Firefly Generative A.I., Which Lets Users Type to Edit Images. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/21/adobe-firefly- generative-ai-lets-you-type-to-edit-images.html

    2023

  21. [29]

    Anna Grajper and Sebastian Dobiesz. 2015. Urbanimals. http://lax.com.pl/ portfolio_page/urbanimals/

    2015

  22. [30]

    Guridi, Cristobal Cheyre, Maria Goula, Duarte Santo, Lee Humphreys, Aishwarya Shankar, and Achilleas Souras

    Jose A. Guridi, Cristobal Cheyre, Maria Goula, Duarte Santo, Lee Humphreys, Aishwarya Shankar, and Achilleas Souras. 2024. Image Generative AI to Design Public Spaces: a Reflection of how AI Could Improve Co-Design of Public Parks. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. (April 2024). https:...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Thilo Hagendorff. 2024. Mapping the Ethics of Generative AI: A Comprehensive Scoping Review. Minds and Machines 34, 4 (2024), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11023-024-09694-w

    2024

  24. [33]

    Peng-Kai Hung, Janet Yi-Ching Huang, Stephan Wensveen, and Rung-Huei Liang

  25. [34]

    Troy Innocent. 2018. Play about Place: Placemaking in location-based game design. In Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference (Beijing, China) (MAB ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284389.3284493

    2018

  26. [35]

    In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (IT University of Copen- hagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24 Companion)

    Re.Dis.Cover Place with Generative AI: Exploring the Experience and De- sign of City Wandering with image-to-image AI. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (IT University of Copen- hagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24 Companion). Association fo...

    2024

  27. [36]

    Troy Innocent. 2021. Urban Play in Practice: Seven Lenses Exploring the Socio- cultural Value of Playable Cities. In Games and Play in the Creative, Smart and Ecological City. Number 5. Routledge, New York, United States, 19

    2021

  28. [37]

    Troy Innocent. 2019. Citizens of Play: Revisiting the Relationship between Playable and Smart Cities. In Making Smart Cities More Playable: Exploring Playable Cities. Springer

    2019

  29. [38]

    Bjoern Karmann. 2023. Paragraphica. https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/ paragraphica

    2023

  30. [39]

    Allison Johnson. 2024. Google’s AI ‘Reimagine’ tool helped us add wrecks, disasters, and corpses to our photos. https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/21/ 24224084/google-pixel-9-reimagine-ai-photos

    2024

  31. [40]

    Vlasios Kasapakis, Damianos Gavalas, and Nikos Bubaris. 2013. Pervasive games research: a design aspects-based state of the art report. In Proceedings of the 17th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (Thessaloniki, Greece) (PCI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2013

  32. [41]

    Pavel Karpashevich, Eva Hornecker, Nana Kesewaa Dankwa, Mohamed Hanafy, and Julian Fietkau. 2016. Blurring boundaries between everyday life and pervasive gaming: an interview study of ingress. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multime...

    2016

  33. [42]

    Genèviéve Korte and Gabriele Ferri. 2018. Research Through Game Design. Interactive Stories from a Submerged Amsterdam. Ocula 19, 19 (2018), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.12977/ocula2018-14

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Nazneen Rajani. 2023. Gen- erative AI meets Responsible AI: Practical Challenges and Opportunities. In Pro- ceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Long Beach, CA, USA) (KDD ’23). Associ...

    2023

  35. [44]

    Michiel De Lange. 2015. The Playful City: Using Play and Games to Foster Citizen Participation. In Social Technologies and Collective Intelligence . Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris Universit, 426–434

    2015

  36. [45]

    Karen Lancel, Frances Brazier, and Hermen Maat. 2019. Saving Face: Shared experience and dialogue on social touch, in playful smart public space . Springer, 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9765-3_9

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    Zhuying Li, Yan Wang, Wei Wang, Stefan Greuter, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller

  38. [47]

    Tatiana Lau, Scott Carter, Francine Chen, Brandon Huynh, Everlyne Kimani, Matthew L Lee, and Kate A Sieck. 2024. Democratizing Design through Gen- erative AI. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (IT University of Copenhagen, Denmar...

    2024

  39. [48]

    Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, and Brian Magerko. 2019. Designing Co-Creative AI for Public Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (San Diego, CA, USA) (C&C ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271–284. https://doi.org/10....

    2019

  40. [49]

    Aale Luusua and Johanna Ylipulli. 2020. Urban AI: Formulating an Agenda for the Interdisciplinary Research of Artificial Intelligence in Cities. In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (DIS’ 20 Companion). Asso...

    2020

  41. [50]

    Lauren Lin and Duri Long. 2023. Generative AI Futures: A Speculative Design Exploration. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, USA) (C&C ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 380–383. https://doi.org/10.1145/3...

    2023

  42. [51]

    Nirav Malsattar, Tomo Kihara, and Elisa Giaccardi. 2019. Designing and Pro- totyping from the Perspective of AI in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2019

  43. [52]

    Jakub Mlynar, Farzaneh Bahrami, André Ourednik, Nico Mutzner, Himanshu Verma, and Hamed Alavi. 2022. AI beyond Deus ex Machina – Reimagining Intelligence in Future Cities with Urban Experts. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New O...

    2022

  44. [53]

    Aale Luusua, Johanna Ylipulli, Marcus Foth, and Alessandro Aurigi. 2023. Urban AI: understanding the emerging role of artificial intelligence in smart cities. AI & SOCIETY 38, 3 (2023), 1039–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01537-5

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    2024.Generative AI (GenAI) and smart cities: Efficiency, cohesion, and sustainability

    Marco Moreno-Ibarra, Magdalena Saldaña-Perez, Samuel Pérez Rodríguez, and Emmanuel Juárez Carbajal. 2024.Generative AI (GenAI) and smart cities: Efficiency, cohesion, and sustainability. Routledge, Chapter 8, 118–129. https://doi.org/10. 1201/9781003415930-11

    2024

  46. [55]

    Michael Muller, Lydia B Chilton, Anna Kantosalo, Charles Patrick Martin, and Greg Walsh. 2022. GenAICHI: Generative AI and HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing...

    2022

  47. [56]

    Luca Mora, Roberto Bolici, and Mark Deakin. 2017. The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Urban Technology 24, 1 (2017), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123

    2017

  48. [57]

    Anton Nijholt. 2020. City Residents as Videogame Characters in Smart Urban Environments. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-13-9765-3_16

    2020

  49. [58]

    Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions. 2024. Dutch Cycling Lifestyle. https://dutchcyclinglifestyle.com/

    2024

  50. [59]

    Anton Nijholt (Ed.). 2017. Playable Cities: The City as a Digital Playground . Springer, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1962-3

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    Carolyn Pang, Carman Neustaedter, Karyn Moffatt, Kate Hennessy, and Rui Pan

  52. [61]

    Eric Paulos and Tom Jenkins. 2005. Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CHI ’05). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 341–350. htt...

    2005 doi

  53. [62]

    Kenton O’Hara. 2008. Understanding geocaching practices and motivations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy) (CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1145/135705...

    2008

  54. [63]

    Fiannaca, Vivian Tsai, Michael Terry, and Carrie J

    Savvas Petridis, Michael Xieyang Liu, Alexander J. Fiannaca, Vivian Tsai, Michael Terry, and Carrie J. Cai. 2024. In Situ AI Prototyping: Infusing Multimodal Prompts into Mobile Settings with MobileMaker. In 2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (...

    2024

  55. [64]

    Behaviour & Information Technology 39, 6 (2020), 624–647

    The role of a location-based city exploration game in digital placemaking. Behaviour & Information Technology 39, 6 (2020), 624–647. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0144929X.2019.1697899

    2020

  56. [65]

    Jason Procyk and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. GEMS: the design and evaluation of a location-based storytelling game. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW ’14). Association for Computin...

    2014

  57. [66]

    Shih-Yu Ma Peng-Kai Hung, Rung-Huei Liang and Bo-Wen Kong. 2024. Exploring the Experience of Traveling to Familiar Places in VR: An Empirical Study Using Google Earth VR. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 2 (2024), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/1044731...

    2024

  58. [67]

    Civic Tripod

    Susana B. Diaz Ruiz, Benjamin Stokes, and Jeff Watson. 2011. Mobile and Locative Games in the “Civic Tripod”: Activism, Art and Learning. International Journal of Learning and Media 3 (2011)

    2011

  59. [68]

    Alenka Poplin. 2011. Games and Serious Games in Urban Planning: Study Cases. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA2011). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–14

    2011

  60. [69]

    Christian Sivertsen and Anders Sundnes Løvlie. 2024. Exploring Aesthetic Quali- ties of Deep Generative Models through Technological (Art) Mediation. In Pro- ceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Copenhagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24). Association for Comp...

    2024

  61. [70]

    Janet Rafner, Steven Langsford, Arthur Hjorth, Miroslav Gajdacz, Lotte Philipsen, Sebastian Risi, Joel Simon, and Jacob Sherson. 2021. Utopian or Dystopian?: using a ML-assisted image generation game to empower the general public to envision the future. In Proceedings of the 1...

    2021

  62. [71]

    Benjamin Stokes, Hazel Arroyo, Mitchell Loewen, Tambra Stevenson, and Chris J. Karr. 2020. A Playful City in the Cards: Sharing Power in Game Design by Extending the Card Metaphor. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Sym- posium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Virt...

    2020

  63. [72]

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, and Weilin Huang. 2024. SeedEdit: Align Image Re- Generation to Image Editing. arXiv:2411.06686 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.06686

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Minhyang (Mia) Suh, Emily Youngblom, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2021. AI as Social Glue: Uncovering the Roles of Deep Generative AI during Social Music Composition. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21...

    2021

  65. [74]

    Jaakko Stenros, Markus Montola, and Frans Mäyrä. 2007. Pervasive games in ludic society. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play (Toronto, Canada) (Future Play ’07) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1328202.1328209

    2007

  66. [75]

    Yuqian Sun, Ying Xu, Chenhang Cheng, Yihua Li, Chang Hee Lee, and Ali Asadipour. 2023. Explore the Future Earth with Wander 2.0: AI Chatbot Driven By Knowledge-base Story Generation and Text-to-image Model. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

    2023

  67. [76]

    PAN Studio, Tom Armitage, and Gyorgyi Galik. 2024. About Hello Lamp Post. http://www.hellolamppost.co.uk/about

    2024

  68. [77]

    UNESCO. 2022. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. https: //unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

    2022

  69. [78]

    Yuan Sun, Eunchae Jang, Fenglong Ma, and Ting Wang. 2024. Generative AI in the Wild: Prospects, Challenges, and Strategies. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2024

  70. [79]

    Greg Walsh and Eric Wronsky. 2019. AI + Co-Design: Developing a Novel Computer-supported Approach to Inclusive Design. In Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Comput- ing (Austin, TX, USA) (CSCW ’19 Companion). Associat...

    2019

  71. [80]

    Mattia Thibault. 2019. Towards a Typology of Urban Gamification. InProceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS, 1216–1225

    2019

  72. [81]

    Laura Weidinger, Jonathan Uesato, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Po-Sen Huang, John Mellor, Amelia Glaese, Myra Cheng, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Court- ney Biles, Sasha Brown, Zac Kenton, Will Hawkins, Tom Stepleton, Abeba Birhane, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Laura Rimell, Willi...

    2022

  73. [82]

    Victoria R Wagner-Greene, Amy J Wotring, Thomas Castor, Jessica Kruger, Sarah Mortemore, and Joseph A Dake. 2017. Pokémon GO: Healthy or Harmful? Am J Public Health 107, 1 (Jan 2017), 35–36. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303548

    2017

  74. [83]

    Weisz, Michael J

    Justin D. Weisz, Michael J. Muller, Jessica He, and Stephanie Houde. 2023. Toward General Design Principles for Generative AI Applications. CoRR abs/2301.05578 (2023). arXiv:2301.05578

    2023 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Po-Hao Wang, Yu-Ting Cheng, Wenn-Chieh Tsai, and Rung-Huei Liang. 2019. Flâneur’s Phonograph: A Flâneur Shift in Urban Exploration. InRTD2019 Research Through Design

    2019

  76. [85]

    Richard Wetzel, Tom Rodden, and Steve Benford. 2016. Developing Ideation Cards for Mixed Reality Game Design. In Proceedings of the First Joint International Conference of Digital Games Research Association and Foundation of Digital Games (DiGRA/FDG 2016)

    2016

  77. [86]

    Weisz, Jessica He, Michael Muller, Gabriela Hoefer, Rachel Miles, and Werner Geyer

    Justin D. Weisz, Jessica He, Michael Muller, Gabriela Hoefer, Rachel Miles, and Werner Geyer. 2024. Design Principles for Generative AI Applications. InProceed- ings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Comp...

    2024

  78. [87]

    Haowen Xu, Femi Omitaomu, Soheil Sabri, Sisi Zlatanova, Xiao Li, and Yongze Song. 2024. Leveraging generative AI for urban digital twins: a scoping review on the autonomous generation of urban data, scenarios, designs, and 3D city models for smart city advancement. Urban Infor...

    2024 doi

  79. [88]

    Richard Wetzel, Rod McCall, Anne-Kathrin Braun, and Wolfgang Broll. 2008. Guidelines for designing augmented reality games. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share(Toronto, Ontario, Canada)(Future Play ’08). Association for Computing Machine...

    2008

  80. [90]

    Fengli Xu, Jun Zhang, Chen Gao, Jie Feng, and Yong Li. 2023. Urban Genera- tive Intelligence (UGI): A Foundational Platform for Agents in Embodied City Environment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11813

    2023 arXiv

  81. [92]

    Dongwen Zhu. 2023. City Ai: A strategic framework for artificial intelligence integration in city development. A vailable at SSRN 4559021(2023). http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.4559021

    2023 doi

  82. [2020]

    In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20)

    Empowering a Creative City: Engage Citizens in Creating Street Art through Human-AI Collaboration. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    2020

  83. [2024]

    Informatics 11, 3 (2024)

    Ethical Challenges and Solutions of Generative AI: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Informatics 11, 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11030058

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.