pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00109 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

What is (H)CI: Why Does the "Human'' Matter?

Sejal Agarwal , Delara Forghani , Brandon Lit , Thomas Driscoll , Anthony Maocheia-Ricci
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords human-computer interactiongenerative AIhuman-centered designworkshopfield reflectionAI impact
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generative AI requires HCI to re-examine what the human element means in design and interaction.

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

This workshop paper poses two questions prompted by widespread generative AI tools: what Human-Computer Interaction fundamentally is, and why the human still matters within it. HCI has long combined computer science, psychology, and human factors to center user concerns through information processing models or direct attention to people's needs with technology. The authors organize guided discussions and group brainstorming to let researchers from multiple fields clarify the field's identity, sketch its possible futures, and reinforce the human focus. A sympathetic reader would care because the answers could determine whether upcoming technologies continue to serve human priorities or shift toward fully automated alternatives.

Core claim

Amid the increasing adoption of generative AI tools, this workshop explores two critical questions in regards to HCI: What is HCI? and Why does the human matter? The aim is to bring together researchers from diverse disciplines to reflect on these questions through guided discussions, group brainstorming, and reflection, exploring what HCI means, what the field may look like in the future, and why it is important to remember the human aspect of the field.

What carries the argument

The two critical questions—what HCI is and why the human matters—used as prompts for guided discussions, group brainstorming, and reflection sessions that draw in researchers from varied disciplines.

Load-bearing premise

That bringing researchers together for structured discussions will produce meaningful clarification or future directions for HCI that address generative AI's impact on the field's human focus.

What would settle it

A post-workshop report showing no new shared definitions, no proposed adjustments to human-centered methods, and no documented shifts in participants' research priorities would indicate the questions did not yield the intended reflection.

read the original abstract

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is a diverse field bringing together theories and methods from fields such as computer science, psychology, and human factors. Historically, HCI has focused on the human through ``user'' or ``human'' centered design, where the focus was either on information processing or understanding people and their concerns with respect to technology. However, amid the increasing adoption of generative AI tools, this workshop explores two critical questions in regards to HCI: What is HCI? and Why does the ``human'' matter? We aim to bring together researchers from diverse disciplines to reflect on these questions. Through guided discussions, group brainstorming, and reflection, we explore what HCI means, what the field may look like in the future, and why it is important to remember the ``human'' aspect of the field.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a workshop titled 'What is (H)CI: Why Does the 'Human' Matter?' to examine the definition and future of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) alongside the role of the human element, prompted by the rise of generative AI tools. It briefly reviews HCI's interdisciplinary roots in computer science, psychology, and human factors, along with its historical emphasis on user-centered or human-centered design, and describes plans to convene researchers for guided discussions, group brainstorming, and reflection on these themes.

Significance. If the workshop occurs as outlined, it could offer a useful venue for the HCI community to collectively reflect on its identity and priorities during a period of rapid technological change. By highlighting the continued relevance of human-focused approaches amid generative AI, the proposal may help sustain ethical and user-centric values in the field. Its value is primarily convening and agenda-setting rather than in the presentation of new data, models, or empirical findings.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of workshop activities remains high-level ('guided discussions, group brainstorming, and reflection'). Including one or two example discussion prompts or a sample agenda would improve specificity and help readers assess the intended depth of engagement.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'in regards to HCI' is slightly awkward; 'regarding HCI' would be more standard. Additionally, the title's '(H)CI' notation is not explained in the provided text and could benefit from a brief parenthetical clarification.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our workshop proposal and for recommending minor revision. The assessment correctly identifies the proposal's focus on convening the HCI community to reflect on the field's identity and the role of the human element in light of generative AI. As no specific major comments were provided, we have no targeted revisions to incorporate at this stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This document is a workshop proposal outlining planned discussions on HCI identity and the role of the human amid generative AI. It advances no empirical claims, derivations, models, equations, or falsifiable assertions of any kind. The text is purely descriptive of intent and activities, with no load-bearing steps, self-citations, fitted parameters, or reductions that could introduce circularity by construction. The reader's assessment of 0.0 is confirmed by direct inspection of the full text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a workshop proposal abstract with no mathematical models, empirical claims, or technical derivations, so the ledger contains no entries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5445 in / 1026 out tokens · 58114 ms · 2026-05-09T20:46:27.197142+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

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human- AI Interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Ma...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233 2019

  2. [2]

    Zahra Ashktorab, Gagan Bansal, Zana Bucinca, Ken Holstein, Jessica Hullman, Al- ison Smith-renner, Sherry Tongshuang Wu, and Isabel Zhang. 2024. Trust and Re- liance in Evolving Human-AI Workflows, at CHI 2024. https://research.ibm.com/ publications/trust-and-reliance-in-evolving-human-ai-workflows-at-chi-2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Liam Bannon. 2011. Reimagining HCI: Toward a More Human-Centered Per- spective.interactions18, 4 (July 2011), 50–57. doi:10.1145/1978822.1978833

    work page doi:10.1145/1978822.1978833 2011

  4. [4]

    Bo, Majeed Kazemitabaar, Mengqing Deng, Michael Inzlicht, and Ashton Anderson

    Jessica Y. Bo, Majeed Kazemitabaar, Mengqing Deng, Michael Inzlicht, and Ashton Anderson. 2026. Invisible Saboteurs: Sycophantic LLMs Mislead Novices in Problem-Solving Tasks. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.03667 arXiv:2510.03667 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03667 2026

  5. [5]

    Susanne Bødker. 2006. When Second Wave HCI Meets Third Wave Challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/1182475.1182476

    work page doi:10.1145/1182475.1182476 2006

  6. [6]

    lawful acquisition

    Jennie J.Y. Chen and Sidney S. Fels. 2025. Curves Ahead: Enhancing the Steering Law for Complex Curved Trajectories. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 975, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598. 3713102

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598 2025

  7. [7]

    Ned Cooper, Tiffanie Horne, Gillian R Hayes, Courtney Heldreth, Michal Lahav, Jess Holbrook, and Lauren Wilcox. 2022. A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis of Community-Collaborative Approaches to Computing Research. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517716

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517716 2022

  8. [8]

    Mustafa Doga Dogan, Eric J Gonzalez, Karan Ahuja, Ruofei Du, Andrea Colaço, Johnny Lee, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, and David Kim. 2024. Augmented Object Intelligence with XR-Objects. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(UIST ’24). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, A...

    work page doi:10.1145/3654777.3676379 2024

  9. [9]

    Figma. 2026. What is human-computer interaction (HCI)? https://www.figma. com/resource-library/human-computer-interaction/

    2026

  10. [10]

    Forbus, Jeffrey Usher, and Vernell Chapman

    Kenneth D. Forbus, Jeffrey Usher, and Vernell Chapman. 2004. Qualitative Spatial Reasoning about Sketch Maps.AI Magazine25, 3 (Sep. 2004), 61. doi:10.1609/ aimag.v25i3.1777

    2004

  11. [11]

    Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. InEarly Engagement and New Tech- nologies: Opening up the Laboratory, Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55–95. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4 2013

  12. [12]

    and Lam, Michelle S

    Mitchell L. Gordon, Michelle S. Lam, Joon Sung Park, Kayur Patel, Jeff Hancock, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2022. Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA) 3 , , Agarwal et al. (CHI ’22). Association for ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3502004 2022

  13. [13]

    Jonathan Grudin and John M. Carroll. 2017.From Tool to Partner: The Evolution of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    2017

  14. [14]

    Mazurek, Manya Sleeper, and Kurt Thomas

    Marco Gutfleisch, Jan H. Klemmer, Niklas Busch, Yasemin Acar, M. Angela Sasse, and Sascha Fahl. 2022. How Does Usable Security (Not) End Up in Software Products? Results From a Qualitative Interview Study. In2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 893–910. doi:10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833756

    work page doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833756 2022

  15. [15]

    Gillian R. Hayes. 2014. Knowing by Doing: Action Research as an Approach to HCI. InWays of Knowing in HCI, Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). Springer, New York, NY, 49–68. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_3 2014

  16. [16]

    Hewett, Ronald Baecker, Stuart Card, Tom Carey, Jean Gasen, Marilyn Mantei, Gary Perlman, Gary Strong, and William Verplank

    Thomas T. Hewett, Ronald Baecker, Stuart Card, Tom Carey, Jean Gasen, Marilyn Mantei, Gary Perlman, Gary Strong, and William Verplank. 1992.ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. Technical Report. New York, NY, USA

    1992

  17. [17]

    Julie A. Jacko. 2012.Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, Third Edition(3rd ed.). CRC Press, Inc., USA

    2012

  18. [18]

    Zhang, Ali Sarvghad, and Narges Mahyar

    Mahmood Jasim, Pooya Khaloo, Somin Wadhwa, Amy X. Zhang, Ali Sarvghad, and Narges Mahyar. 2021. CommunityClick: Capturing and Reporting Commu- nity Feedback from Town Halls to Improve Inclusivity.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW3, Article 213 (Jan. 2021), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3432912

    work page doi:10.1145/3432912 2021

  19. [19]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Claudia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sailer, Albrecht Schmidt, Tina Seidel, Matthias Stadler, Jochen Weller, Jochen Kuhn,...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lindif 2023

  20. [20]

    Donald A. Norman. 2013.The Design of Everyday Things(rev. and expanded edition ed.). MIT press, Cambridge (Mass.)

    2013

  21. [21]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans30(3), 286–297 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354

    R. Parasuraman, T.B. Sheridan, and C.D. Wickens. 2000. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans30, 3 (May 2000), 286–297. doi:10.1109/3468.844354

    work page doi:10.1109/3468.844354 2000

  22. [22]

    Xiang Qi and Junnan Yu. 2025. Participatory Design in Human-Computer In- teraction: Cases, Characteristics, and Lessons. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–26. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713436

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713436 2025

  23. [23]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2000. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.7, 1 (March 2000), 114–138. doi:10.1145/344949.345077

    work page doi:10.1145/344949.345077 2000

  24. [24]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2002.04087 arXiv:2002.04087 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.04087 2020

  25. [25]

    Anna Spagnolli, Mariavittoria Masotina, Annalorena Scarcia, Beatrice Zuffi, and Luciano Gamberini. 2022. How to get away with cyberattacks: An argumentative approach to cyberattacks’ legitimization by common users. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517444 2022

  26. [26]

    Joice Tang and Sucheta Ghoshal. 2025. Research and/as Relation: Documenting Experiences of Community-Collaborative Researchers in HCI.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 7 (Oct. 2025), 1–30. doi:10.1145/3757651

    work page doi:10.1145/3757651 2025

  27. [27]

    Riccardo Volpato, Simone Stumpf, and Lisa DeBruine. 2026. Generative Confi- dants: How do People Experience Trust in Emotional Support from Generative AI? doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.16656 arXiv:2601.16656 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16656 2026

  28. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18105 (2024)

    Shen Wang, Tianlong Xu, Hang Li, Chaoli Zhang, Joleen Liang, Jiliang Tang, Philip S. Yu, and Qingsong Wen. 2024. Large Language Models for Education: A Survey and Outlook. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.18105 arXiv:2403.18105 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.18105 2024

  29. [29]

    Wei Xu. 2019. Toward human-centered AI: a perspective from human-computer interaction.interactions26, 4 (June 2019), 42–46. doi:10.1145/3328485

    work page doi:10.1145/3328485 2019

  30. [30]

    Wei Xu and Zaifeng Gao. 2023. Applying HCAI in developing effective human-AI teaming: A perspective from human-AI joint cognitive systems. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2307.03913 arXiv:2307.03913 [cs]. 4

    work page arXiv 2023