pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27231 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Upskilling with Generative AI: Practices and Challenges for Freelance Knowledge Workers

Kashif Imteyaz , Isabel Lopez , Nakul Rajpal , Hunjun Shin , Saiph Savage
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords freelance workgenerative AIupskillingself-directed learninginvisible competenciesplatform laborskill acquisitiongig economy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Freelancers rely on generative AI to organize skill learning but do not treat it as primary and cannot easily prove what they gain.

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

The paper investigates how freelance knowledge workers, who lack employer-provided training, turn to generative AI tools to support self-directed upskilling in competitive online markets. It finds that these tools help structure exploratory learning yet fall short as the main resource because of output inconsistencies, missing context, and the extra work of verification. The study documents a change in purpose where upskilling serves immediate survival and market demands instead of longer-term growth. It also introduces invisible competencies as the problem that skills gained through AI remain difficult to signal credibly to clients. These patterns matter because they show how AI interacts with the precarity of platform work and what that implies for tool design.

Core claim

Freelancers increasingly rely on generative AI to structure learning and support exploratory skill acquisition, but do not treat it as their primary learning resource due to inconsistency, lack of contextual relevance, and verification overhead. We identify a shift from learning as growth to learning as survival, where upskilling is oriented toward immediate market viability rather than long-term development. We also surface a structural challenge we term invisible competencies, in which workers acquire skills through generative AI tools but lack credible ways to signal or validate these skills in competitive freelance markets.

What carries the argument

Invisible competencies: skills gained through generative AI that lack credible signaling or validation mechanisms in freelance markets, identified via mixed-methods study grounded in self-directed learning theory.

If this is right

  • Generative AI learning tools require better support for verification and contextual fit to serve freelance needs.
  • Freelance platforms must create mechanisms that let workers demonstrate skills acquired via AI.
  • Upskilling among freelancers now centers on short-term market viability rather than sustained development.
  • Design recommendations should address the precarity and competition that shape how freelancers learn.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Without new validation systems, AI-driven skill gains could widen recognition gaps in freelance hiring.
  • Platforms might respond by adding built-in certification tied to AI-assisted learning.
  • The survival-oriented learning shift could slow long-term innovation if extended across gig sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The freelancers who answered the survey and interviews represent the larger population and their self-reports match their actual practices without major bias.

What would settle it

A larger study that logs actual AI usage or runs experiments with freelancers and finds either primary reliance on the tools or workable ways to signal the resulting skills to clients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27231 by Hunjun Shin, Isabel Lopez, Kashif Imteyaz, Nakul Rajpal, Saiph Savage.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our exploratory mixed method study view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Perceived impact of AI on freelance work over the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Preferred methods for learning new skills, rated view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Features valued most in an AI-powered learning view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Freelance workers must continually acquire new skills to remain competitive in online labor markets, yet they lack the organizational training, mentorship, and infrastructure available to traditional employees. Generative AI-powered tools like ChatGPT are reshaping market skill demands while also offering new forms of on-demand learning support to meet those demands. Despite growing interest in AI-powered learning tools, little is known about how freelancers actually use these tools to learn, the challenges they encounter, and how generative AI for learning interacts with precarity and competition in platform-based work. We present a mixed-methods study combining a survey and semi-structured interviews with freelance knowledge workers. Grounded in self-directed learning theory, we examine how freelancers integrate generative AI tools into their learning practices. Our findings show that freelancers increasingly rely on generative AI to structure learning and support exploratory skill acquisition, but do not treat it as their primary learning resource due to inconsistency, lack of contextual relevance, and verification overhead. We identify a shift from learning as growth to learning as survival, where upskilling is oriented toward immediate market viability rather than long-term development. We also surface a structural challenge we term invisible competencies, in which workers acquire skills through generative AI tools but lack credible ways to signal or validate these skills in competitive freelance markets. Based on these insights, we offer design recommendations for generative AI-powered learning tools for freelancers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a mixed-methods study combining a survey and semi-structured interviews with freelance knowledge workers, grounded in self-directed learning theory. It examines how these workers integrate generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) into upskilling practices amid platform precarity. Key claims are that freelancers use GenAI to structure learning and support exploratory skill acquisition but do not treat it as primary due to inconsistency, lack of contextual relevance, and verification overhead; that there is a shift from 'learning as growth' to 'learning as survival' oriented toward immediate market viability; and that workers face 'invisible competencies'—AI-acquired skills lacking credible signaling or validation mechanisms in competitive freelance markets. The paper concludes with design recommendations for GenAI-powered learning tools tailored to freelancers.

Significance. If the empirical patterns hold, the work contributes to HCI and CSCW by extending self-directed learning theory to gig-economy contexts and surfacing structural labor-market frictions around AI-assisted skill acquisition. The concept of 'invisible competencies' provides a useful framing for future research on credentialing and signaling in platform work. Strengths include the mixed-methods design, explicit theoretical grounding, and actionable design implications. The findings could inform tool development and policy discussions on AI in precarious work, though their broader impact depends on addressing generalizability concerns.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript provides no details on sample size, recruitment strategy (e.g., platforms used, inclusion criteria), response rates, or demographic coverage, nor any comparison to external benchmarks such as Upwork or Freelancer labor-market statistics. This is load-bearing for the central claims about population-level shifts to 'learning as survival' and the prevalence of 'invisible competencies,' as self-reported practices are vulnerable to selection and recall bias without mitigation (e.g., member-checking or triangulation).
  2. [Findings] Findings section (around the 'invisible competencies' and survival-learning themes): The interpretive leap from participant accounts to structural challenges lacks explicit evidence of coding schemes, inter-rater reliability, or representative quote selection. Without these, it is unclear whether the patterns are robust or idiosyncratic to the (unspecified) sample, directly affecting the validity of the design recommendations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Omits all methodological details (sample size, analysis approach, bias controls), which should be summarized to allow readers to assess the strength of the reported findings.
  2. [Introduction/Theory] The new term 'invisible competencies' is introduced without an explicit operational definition or contrast to related concepts (e.g., tacit knowledge or uncredentialed skills) in the theory or discussion sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. The comments identify key areas where additional transparency will strengthen the manuscript, particularly in the Methods and Findings sections. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that enhance methodological rigor and analytical clarity without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript provides no details on sample size, recruitment strategy (e.g., platforms used, inclusion criteria), response rates, or demographic coverage, nor any comparison to external benchmarks such as Upwork or Freelancer labor-market statistics. This is load-bearing for the central claims about population-level shifts to 'learning as survival' and the prevalence of 'invisible competencies,' as self-reported practices are vulnerable to selection and recall bias without mitigation (e.g., member-checking or triangulation).

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section in the submitted manuscript lacks sufficient detail on these elements, which is necessary to support claims about shifts in upskilling practices and the prevalence of invisible competencies. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to include the survey and interview sample sizes, recruitment strategy (including platforms such as Upwork and LinkedIn, along with inclusion criteria), response rates, and participant demographics. We will also add a comparison to relevant external labor-market benchmarks from sources like Upwork reports to contextualize the sample. Additionally, we will describe bias mitigation steps, including member-checking with participants and triangulation across survey and interview data. These additions will provide a stronger basis for the reported patterns. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings section (around the 'invisible competencies' and survival-learning themes): The interpretive leap from participant accounts to structural challenges lacks explicit evidence of coding schemes, inter-rater reliability, or representative quote selection. Without these, it is unclear whether the patterns are robust or idiosyncratic to the (unspecified) sample, directly affecting the validity of the design recommendations.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript does not explicitly document the qualitative coding process or quote selection criteria, which limits assessment of the robustness of themes such as invisible competencies and the shift to survival-oriented learning. In the revised version, we will add a detailed description of the analysis approach in the Methods section, including the coding scheme (inductive thematic analysis informed by self-directed learning theory), inter-rater reliability procedures if multiple coders were used, and the rationale for selecting representative quotes. We will also include additional supporting quotes and explicit links from the data to the structural interpretations. These changes will clarify the analytical rigor and better justify the design recommendations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in empirical mixed-methods study

full rationale

This paper reports a mixed-methods empirical study consisting of a survey and semi-structured interviews with freelance knowledge workers, grounded in self-directed learning theory. All central claims—including reliance on generative AI for exploratory learning, the shift from learning as growth to survival, and the emergence of invisible competencies—are presented as interpretive findings drawn directly from the authors' primary data collection and thematic analysis. No mathematical derivations, parameter fitting, predictions, or self-referential definitions appear; the derivation chain consists of standard qualitative and quantitative interpretation of collected responses rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. External theoretical grounding and primary data collection render the study self-contained without load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of self-directed learning theory to AI-assisted freelance contexts and the interpretive validity of self-reported data from the sample; it introduces the new concept of invisible competencies without independent falsifiable evidence outside the study.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-directed learning theory applies directly to how freelancers integrate generative AI tools into their practices
    Explicitly stated as the grounding framework for examining integration of AI into learning practices.
invented entities (1)
  • invisible competencies no independent evidence
    purpose: To describe skills acquired via generative AI that workers cannot credibly signal or validate in freelance markets
    New term introduced to capture a structural challenge identified in the findings; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction provided beyond the study itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 9530 in / 1648 out tokens · 128013 ms · 2026-05-07T08:25:08.181598+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Jonathon Hazell, and Pascual Restrepo. 2022. Ar- tificial intelligence and jobs: Evidence from online vacancies.Journal of Labor Economics40, S1 (2022), S293–S340

    2022

  2. [2]

    Rudaiba Adnin, Atharva Pandkar, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, and Maitraye Das. 2025. Examining Student and Teacher Perspectives on Undisclosed Use of Generative AI in Academic Work. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2025

  3. [3]

    Juan Carlos Alvarez de la Vega, Marta E Cecchinato, John Rooksby, and Joseph Newbold. 2023. Understanding platform mediated work-life: a diary study with gig economy freelancers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–32

    2023

  4. [4]

    John R Anderson, Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Ray Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.The journal of the learning sciences4, 2 (1995), 167–207

    1995

  5. [5]

    2026.Getting Started with Cowork

    Anthropic. 2026.Getting Started with Cowork. Claude Help Center. https:// support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-getting-started-with-cowork Accessed: 2026-02-02

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    2016.The competitive effects of information sharing

    John Asker, Chaim Fershtman, Jihye Jeon, and Ariel Pakes. 2016.The competitive effects of information sharing. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

    2016

  7. [7]

    David H Autor. 2015. Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation.Journal of economic perspectives29, 3 (2015), 3–30

    2015

  8. [8]

    Beier, Mahima Saxena, Kurt Kraiger, David P

    Margaret E. Beier, Mahima Saxena, Kurt Kraiger, David P. Costanza, Cort W. Rudolph, David M. Cadiz, Gretchen A. Petery, and Gwenith G. Fisher. 2025. Work- place learning and the future of work.Industrial and Organizational Psychology 18, 1 (2025), 84–109. doi:10.1017/iop.2024.57

    work page doi:10.1017/iop.2024.57 2025

  9. [9]

    Michael S Bernstein. 2010. Crowd-powered interfaces. InAdjunct proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 347–350

    2010

  10. [10]

    Michael S Bernstein, Desney Tan, Greg Smith, Mary Czerwinski, and Eric Horvitz

  11. [11]

    Personalization via friendsourcing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)17, 2 (2008), 1–28

    2008

  12. [12]

    Allie Blaising and Laura Dabbish. 2022. Managing the transition to online freelance platforms: self-directed socialization.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  13. [13]

    Allie Blaising, Yasmine Kotturi, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2019. Navigating Un- certainty in the Future of Work: Information-Seeking and Critical Events Among Online Freelancers. InExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290607.3312922 2019

  14. [14]

    Allie Blaising, Yasmine Kotturi, Chinmay Kulkarni, and Laura Dabbish. 2021. Making it work, or not: A longitudinal study of career trajectories among online freelancers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW3 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  15. [15]

    2016.Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes

    Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016.Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes. Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    2016

  16. [16]

    Gary Blau, Lynne Andersson, Kathleen Davis, Tom Daymont, Arthur Hochner, Karen Koziara, Jim Portwood, and Blair Holladay. 2008. The relation between employee organizational and professional development activities.Journal of Vocational Behavior72, 1 (2008), 123–142

    2008

  17. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  18. [18]

    Peter Brusilovsky and Eva Millán. 2007. User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. InThe adaptive web: methods and strategies of web personalization. Springer, 3–53

    2007

  19. [19]

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond. 2025. Generative AI at work.The Quarterly Journal of Economics140, 2 (2025), 889–942

    2025

  20. [20]

    Andrew Burke and Marc Cowling. 2020. The relationship between freelance workforce intensity, business performance and job creation.Small Business Eco- nomics55, 2 (2020), 399–413

    2020

  21. [21]

    Dan Calacci. 2022. Organizing in the end of employment: information sharing, data stewardship, and digital workerism. InProceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. 1–9

    2022

  22. [22]

    Joe Campana. 2014. Learning for work and professional development: The significance of informal learning networks of digital media industry professionals. International Journal of Training Research12, 3 (2014), 213–226. doi:10.1080/ 14480220.2014.11082043

    work page arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Steve Campbell, Melanie Greenwood, Sarah Prior, Toniele Shearer, Kerrie Walkem, Sarah Young, Danielle Bywaters, and Kim Walker. 2020. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples.Journal of research in Nursing25, 8 (2020), 652–661

    2020

  24. [24]

    John Chen, Xi Lu, Yuzhou Du, Michael Rejtig, Ruth Bagley, Mike Horn, and Uri Wilensky. 2024. Learning Agent-based Modeling with LLM Companions: Expe- riences of Novices and Experts Using ChatGPT & NetLogo Chat. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642377 2024

  25. [25]

    Chun-Wei Chiang, Anna Kasunic, and Saiph Savage. 2018. Crowd coach: Peer coaching for crowd workers’ skill growth.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–17

    2018

  26. [26]

    Gráinne Conole and Karen Fill. 2005. A learning design toolkit to create peda- gogically effective learning activities.Journal of Interactive Media in Education1 (2005)

    2005

  27. [27]

    Kelley Cotter and Bianca C Reisdorf. 2020. Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality.International Journal of Communication14 (2020), 21

    2020

  28. [28]

    2017.Designing and conducting mixed methods research

    John W Creswell and Vicki L Plano Clark. 2017.Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications

    2017

  29. [29]

    Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Matthew Groh, and Ziv Epstein. 2025. Deceptive explanations by large language models lead people to change their beliefs about misinformation more often than honest explanations. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–31

    2025

  30. [30]

    Ozge Demirci, Jonas Hannane, and Xinrong Zhu. 2025. Who is AI replacing? The impact of generative AI on online freelancing platforms.Management Science 71, 10 (2025), 8097–8108

    2025

  31. [31]

    Kimberly Do, Maya De Los Santos, Michael Muller, and Saiph Savage. 2024. Designing gig worker sousveillance tools. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2024

  32. [32]

    Mateusz Dolata, Norbert Lange, and Gerhard Schwabe. 2025. More Attention, Transformation, Acceleration, and Exploration: Freelance Developers’ Take on Hypes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 914, 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713097

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713097 2025

  33. [33]

    Michael Eraut*. 2004. Informal learning in the workplace.Studies in continuing education26, 2 (2004), 247–273

    2004

  34. [34]

    Shaoyang Fan, Ujwal Gadiraju, Alessandro Checco, and Gianluca Demartini. 2020. Crowdco-op: Sharing risks and rewards in crowdsourcing.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–24

    2020

  35. [35]

    Claudia Flores Saviaga, Ricardo Granados, Liliana Savage, Lizbeth Olivia Es- cobedo Bravo, and Saiph Savage. 2020. Understanding the complementary nature of paid and volunteer crowds for content creation. (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Claudia Flores-Saviaga, Benjamin V Hanrahan, Kashif Imteyaz, Steven Clarke, and Saiph Savage. 2025. The Impact of Generative AI Coding Assistants on Developers Who Are Visually Impaired. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2025

  37. [37]

    Zachary Fulker and Christoph Riedl. 2024. Cooperation in the Gig Economy: Insights from Upwork Freelancers.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 37 (April 2024), 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3637314

    work page doi:10.1145/3637314 2024

  38. [38]

    Marylène Gagné, Sharon K Parker, Mark A Griffin, Patrick D Dunlop, Caroline Knight, Florian E Klonek, and Xavier Parent-Rocheleau. 2022. Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory.Nature Reviews Psychology1, 7 (2022), 378–392

    2022

  39. [39]

    D Randy Garrison. 1997. Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult education quarterly48, 1 (1997), 18–33

    1997

  40. [40]

    Elena L Glassman, Christopher J Terman, and Robert C Miller. 2015. Learner- sourcing in an engineering class at scale. InProceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 363–366

    2015

  41. [41]

    Gray and Siddharth Suri

    Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019.Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NY. https://marylgray.org/bio/on-demand/

    2019

  42. [42]

    Mary L Gray, Siddharth Suri, Syed Shoaib Ali, and Deepti Kulkarni. 2016. The crowd is a collaborative network. InProceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 134–147

    2016

  43. [43]

    Gruenewald and M

    H. Gruenewald and M. Mueller. 2025. Challenges and Opportunities in Reskilling and Upskilling. InReskilling and Upskilling in a Globalized Economy, Future of Business and Finance. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature, 167–196. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48384-5_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48384-5_7 2025

  44. [44]

    Fabian Gussek. 2024. Understanding the careers of freelancers on digital labor platforms: The case of IT work.Information Systems Journal(2024). doi:10.1111/ isj.12509

    2024

  45. [45]

    Kunal Handa, Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Saffron Huang, Esin Durmus, Sarah Heck, Jared Mueller, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, Tim Belonax, et al. 2025. Which economic tasks are performed with ai? evidence from millions of claude conversa- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04761(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Donna Haraway. 2013. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1. InWomen, science, and technology. Routledge, 455–472

    2013

  47. [47]

    Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, and Justin D Weisz. 2025. Which contributions deserve credit? Perceptions of attribution in human-AI co-creation. InProceedings CHIWORK ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Linz, Austria Imteyaz et al. of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

    2025

  48. [48]

    David M Holtz, Liane Scult, and Siddharth Suri. 2022. How Much Do Platform Workers Value Reviews? An Experimental Method. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 71, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501900

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501900 2022

  49. [49]

    Jane Hsieh, Miranda Karger, Lucas Zagal, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. Co-designing alternatives for the future of gig worker well-being: Navigating multi-stakeholder incentives and preferences. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 664–687

    2023

  50. [50]

    Jane Hsieh, Angie Zhang, Sajel Surati, Sijia Xie, Yeshua Ayala, Nithila Sathiya, Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Min Kyung Lee, and Haiyi Zhu. 2025. Gig2Gether: Datasharing to Empower, Unify and Demystify Gig Work. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–25

    2025

  51. [51]

    Jessica Huang, Ning F Ma, Veronica A Rivera, Tabreek Somani, Patrick Yung Kang Lee, Joanna Mcgrenere, and Dongwook Yoon. 2024. Design Tensions in Online Freelancing Platforms: Using Speculative Participatory Design to Support Free- lancers’ Relationships with Clients.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–28

    2024

  52. [52]

    Keman Huang, Jinhui Yao, and Ming Yin. 2019. Understanding the Skill Provision in Gig Economy from A Network Perspective: A Case Study of Fiverr.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3 (11 2019), 1–23. doi:10.1145/3359234

    work page doi:10.1145/3359234 2019

  53. [53]

    Xiang Hui, Oren Reshef, and Luofeng Zhou. 2024. The Short-Term Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Employment: Evidence from an Online Labor Market.Organization Science35, 6 (Nov. 2024), 1977–1989. doi:10.1287/orsc.2023. 18441

    work page doi:10.1287/orsc.2023 2024

  54. [54]

    Kashif Imteyaz, Claudia Flores-Saviaga, and Saiph Savage. 2024. GigSense: An LLM-Infused Tool forWorkers’ Collective Intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02528(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Kashif Imteyaz, Claudia Flores Saviaga, and Saiph Savage. 2024. Human Com- putation, Equitable, and Innovative Future of Work AI Tools. InProceedings of the Twelfth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 12. AAAI Press, 155–156. doi:10.1609/hcomp.v12i1.31611

    work page doi:10.1609/hcomp.v12i1.31611 2024

  56. [56]

    Kashif Imteyaz, Michael Muller, Claudia Flores-Saviaga, and Saiph Savage. 2026. Co-Designing Collaborative Generative AI Tools for Freelancers. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    2026

  57. [57]

    Nataliya V Ivankova, John W Creswell, and Sheldon L Stick. 2006. Using mixed- methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice.Field methods18, 1 (2006), 3–20

    2006

  58. [58]

    Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Gemma Newlands, Min Kyung Lee, Christine T Wolf, Eliscia Kinder, and Will Sutherland. 2021. Algorithmic management in a work context.Big Data & Society8, 2 (2021), 20539517211020332

    2021

  59. [59]

    Johnson and Roger T

    David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. 1987.Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning(2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    1987

  60. [60]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Seßler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, et al. 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education.Learning and individual differences103 (2023), 102274

    2023

  61. [61]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Chow, Carl Ka To Ma, Barbara J Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the effect of AI code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–23

    2023

  62. [62]

    2015.Learnersourcing: improving learning with collective learner activity

    Juho Kim et al. 2015.Learnersourcing: improving learning with collective learner activity. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2015

  63. [63]

    Pyeonghwa Kim, Taylor Lewandowski, Michael Dunn, and Steve Sawyer. 2026. Occupational Diversity and Stratification in Platform Work: A Longitudinal Study of Online Freelancers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03517(2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Pyeonghwa Kim and Steve Sawyer. 2023. Many Futures of Work and Skill: Hetero- geneity in Skill Building Experiences on Digital Labor Platforms. InProceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (Oldenburg, Germany)(CHIWORK ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 9 pages. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3596671.3597655 2023

  65. [65]

    Barbara A Kitchenham and Shari L Pfleeger. 2008. Personal opinion surveys. In Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, 63–92

    2008

  66. [66]

    Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton

    Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. InProceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(San Antonio, Texas, USA)(CSCW ’13). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1318. doi:10.1145/2...

    work page doi:10.1145/2441776.2441923 2013

  67. [67]

    Benjamin Knight, Dmitry Mitrofanov, and Serguei Netessine. 2024. The impact of AI technology on the productivity of gig economy workers. InProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 833–833

    2024

  68. [68]

    1980.The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy

    Malcolm Shepherd Knowles et al. 1980.The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Vol. 2. Cambridge Adult Education Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    1980

  69. [69]

    Ekaterina Kochmar, Dung Do Vu, Robert Belfer, Varun Gupta, Iulian Vlad Ser- ban, and Joelle Pineau. 2022. Automated data-driven generation of personalized pedagogical interventions in intelligent tutoring systems.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education32, 2 (2022), 323–349

    2022

  70. [70]

    2014.Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development

    David A Kolb. 2014.Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press

    2014

  71. [71]

    Lin Kyi, Amruta Mahuli, M Six Silberman, Reuben Binns, Jun Zhao, and Asia J Biega. 2025. Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2025

  72. [72]

    Josephine Lang. 2023. Workforce upskilling: can universities meet the chal- lenges of lifelong learning?The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology40, 5 (2023), 388–400

    2023

  73. [73]

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1603–1612. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123 2015

  74. [74]

    Ling Li. 2024. Reskilling and upskilling the future-ready workforce for industry 4.0 and beyond.Information Systems Frontiers26, 5 (2024), 1697–1712

    2024

  75. [75]

    Andrew Lowe, Anthony C Norris, A Jane Farris, and Duncan R Babbage. 2018. Quantifying thematic saturation in qualitative data analysis.Field methods30, 3 (2018), 191–207

    2018

  76. [76]

    Oleksandr Lytvyn. 2025. Human-AI Interaction in Language Acquisition: Eval- uating LLM as a Language Partner. InProceedings of the MEi: CogSci Conference, Vol. 19

    2025

  77. [77]

    Brush it Off

    Ning F. Ma, Veronica A. Rivera, Zheng Yao, and Dongwook Yoon. 2022. “Brush it Off”: How Women Workers Manage and Cope with Bias and Harassment in Gender-agnostic Gig Platforms. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 397, ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Shuai Ma, Junling Wang, Yuanhao Zhang, Xiaojuan Ma, and April Yi Wang. 2025. DBox: Scaffolding Algorithmic Programming Learning through Learner-LLM Co- Decomposition. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 585, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713748

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713748 2025

  79. [79]

    Mareike Möhlmann, Lior Zalmanson, Ola Henfridsson, and Robert Wayne Gre- gory. 2021. Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control.MIS quarterly45, 4 (2021)

    2021

  80. [80]

    Sofia Morandini, Federico Fraboni, Marco De Angelis, Gabriele Puzzo, Davide Giusino, and Luca Pietrantoni. 2023. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Workers’ Skills: Upskilling and Reskilling in Organisations.Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline26 (2023), 39–68. doi:10.28945/ 5078

    2023

Showing first 80 references.