pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02805 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Exploring Instant Photography using Generative AI: A Design Probe with the UnReality Camera

Michael Yin , Angela Chiang , Robert Xiao
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords generative AIinstant photographydesign probeuser experiencetangible interfacesstochastic generationartistic control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Embedding generative AI in an instant camera creates a hybrid experience of artistic control and creative suspense from unpredictability.

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

The paper uses a design probe called the UnReality Camera to examine how generative AI changes the experience of instant photography. The device captures a scene and generates an augmented version based on the user's spoken words, then prints it on the spot like a classic Polaroid. Participants liked having ways to steer the artistic result but also welcomed the fresh ideas that came from the AI's random variations. The time spent waiting for the output built a sense of anticipation, while the camera's physical presence helped users feel a personal connection to the final image even though it was artificially produced. Overall the work shows how control and unpredictability reshape each other when AI is added to a familiar tangible process.

Core claim

Through the UnReality Camera, which prints AI-augmented photos from spoken input, users valued both artistic control and the creativity from stochastic unpredictability; the waiting period built anticipatory suspense, and the device's physical form created a sense of ownership and connection despite the artificial generation.

What carries the argument

The UnReality Camera, an AI-mediated instant camera that augments captured photos with generative output from spoken words, used as a probe to reveal shifts in photographic experience.

If this is right

  • Users experience anticipatory suspense while waiting for the AI-generated output.
  • The physical form of the camera fosters ownership and emotional connection to AI-produced images.
  • Opposing affordances of control and unpredictability reshape interpretations of photographic qualities.
  • Generative AI embedded in tangible processes like instant photography creates hybrid experiences of deliberation and surprise.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Designers of AI creative tools could incorporate physical waiting periods to enhance engagement through suspense.
  • Similar tensions between control and randomness may appear in other tangible AI interfaces such as AI-assisted drawing devices.
  • Long-term studies could reveal if these perceptions persist beyond initial novelty of the prototype.

Load-bearing premise

The reported user perceptions stem primarily from the generative AI integration and physical form rather than from the novelty of the prototype device or specific implementation details.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison study between the UnReality Camera and a non-generative instant camera with identical physical form and printing process, measuring differences in reported suspense, ownership, and appreciation of unpredictability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02805 by Angela Chiang, Michael Yin, Robert Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The UnReality Camera incorporates generative AI in instant photography. A person finds an environment that they would like to capture. While framing the shot, the person provides a spoken description and chooses a stylistic model that shapes the photo. The final image is printed out, representing an AI-mediated transformation of the captured environment. Abstract Generative AI has increasingly been used fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Front and back view of the UnReality Camera. The USB Wi-Fi Modem is presently unplugged, but can be connected to the Raspberry Pi for a portable Internet connection. photography, aligning with the design principles. Furthermore, spo￾ken words can be more spontaneous and unfiltered compared to written text [87, 108], helping to capture instantaneous reactions to the environment. 3.2 System Implementation In… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Some examples of the original and final images using the view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative AI has increasingly been used for artistic creation, but little work has explored how it shapes the experiential meaning of practice. We consider how generative AI might transform the embodied and tangible process of instant photography through the UnReality Camera, an AI-mediated instant camera. The UnReality Camera prints a photo of the environment augmented by a user's spoken words as generative input. In a design probe, we explored how generative AI shapes people's perceptions of both photographic output and the broader photographic process. Although users valued artistic control, they also appreciated the creativity afforded by stochastic unpredictability. The waiting period for an unpredictable output elicited anticipatory suspense, and the camera's physical form evoked ownership and connection despite artificial generation. We discuss how people make sense of instant photography's experiential qualities when generative AI is embedded, and how their opposing affordances reshape interpretations of each other's experiential meaning.

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. The paper introduces the UnReality Camera, a prototype AI-mediated instant camera that captures an image of the environment and augments it with generative output based on the user's spoken words before printing a physical photo. Through a design probe, the authors explore how embedding generative AI into the tangible instant photography process shapes users' perceptions of both the output and the broader practice. Reported findings indicate that participants valued artistic control yet appreciated creativity from stochastic unpredictability, experienced anticipatory suspense during the waiting period for unpredictable outputs, and felt ownership and connection via the physical form despite the artificial generation. The discussion addresses how opposing affordances of instant photography and generative AI reshape each other's experiential meanings.

Significance. If the reported experiential findings can be substantiated, the work contributes to HCI and design research on human-AI co-creation by examining the integration of generative AI into embodied, time-based creative practices. It provides concrete examples of how stochastic elements and physical tangibility can coexist to support both control and surprise, with potential implications for designing hybrid tools that preserve anticipatory and ownership qualities in photography and similar domains. The design-probe format is appropriate for surfacing sense-making processes in novel interactions.

major comments (2)
  1. The design probe description provides no information on participant numbers, recruitment, study protocol, data collection procedures (e.g., interviews or observations), or analysis methods. These details are load-bearing for the central claims about user perceptions of suspense, ownership, and the balance of control versus unpredictability, as the findings rest entirely on reported user feedback.
  2. In the discussion of how generative AI reshapes experiential qualities (abstract and discussion), the attribution of anticipatory suspense to the 'waiting period for an unpredictable output' and ownership 'despite artificial generation' lacks isolation from confounds. No baseline comparison to a non-AI instant camera or within-subject contrast is described, leaving open whether these effects arise primarily from the inherent development delay of instant film, prototype novelty, or the AI integration itself.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract summarizes high-level findings effectively but could briefly note the scale or nature of the probe (e.g., number of participants) to give readers immediate context without requiring them to reach the methods section.
  2. Terminology such as 'stochastic unpredictability,' 'generative input,' and 'opposing affordances' is used consistently in the abstract; ensure the same precision appears in the findings and discussion to avoid minor ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with the prototype.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating where we will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and rigor while preserving the exploratory nature of the design probe.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The design probe description provides no information on participant numbers, recruitment, study protocol, data collection procedures (e.g., interviews or observations), or analysis methods. These details are load-bearing for the central claims about user perceptions of suspense, ownership, and the balance of control versus unpredictability, as the findings rest entirely on reported user feedback.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological details are essential and were omitted from the submitted manuscript. We will revise the Methods section to provide a full account of the design probe, including participant numbers, recruitment procedures, the study protocol and session structure, data collection methods (such as interviews and observations), and the approach to qualitative analysis. This addition will substantiate the reported user perceptions and address the referee's concern directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the discussion of how generative AI reshapes experiential qualities (abstract and discussion), the attribution of anticipatory suspense to the 'waiting period for an unpredictable output' and ownership 'despite artificial generation' lacks isolation from confounds. No baseline comparison to a non-AI instant camera or within-subject contrast is described, leaving open whether these effects arise primarily from the inherent development delay of instant film, prototype novelty, or the AI integration itself.

    Authors: We recognize this as a valid critique of causal attribution. The work is framed as an exploratory design probe focused on sense-making within the novel hybrid system rather than a controlled comparison. We will revise the Discussion (and update the abstract if needed) to explicitly acknowledge potential confounds such as the baseline properties of instant film and prototype novelty, and to present the findings as participants' reported experiences with the integrated artifact rather than isolated effects of the AI component. A dedicated limitations paragraph will be added to discuss this framing. A comparative baseline study lies outside the scope of the current probe. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative HCI design probe study whose claims rest on thematic analysis of participant interviews and observations from the UnReality Camera prototype. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. Central interpretations about anticipatory suspense and ownership are presented as emerging from user feedback rather than reducing by construction to any prior author-defined inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. The work is self-contained as an empirical exploration without load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative HCI design-probe study with no mathematical models, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; it relies on standard user-experience exploration methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1147 out tokens · 133207 ms · 2026-05-08T18:29:43.377922+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

113 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alyse Marie Allred and Cecilia Aragon. 2023. Art in the Machine: Value Mis- alignment and AI “Art”. InCooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, Yuhua Luo (Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 31–42. doi:10.1007/978-3- 031-43815-8_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2023

  2. [2]

    Ozgun Atasoy and Carey K Morewedge. 2018. Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods.Journal of Consumer Research44, 6 (April 2018), 1343–1357. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx102

    work page doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx102 2018

  3. [3]

    2014.Camera & Craft: Learning the Technical Art of Digital Photography: (The Digital Imaging Masters Series)

    Andy Batt, Candace Dobro, and Jodie Steen. 2014.Camera & Craft: Learning the Technical Art of Digital Photography: (The Digital Imaging Masters Series). Routledge, New York. doi:10.4324/9780203792391

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203792391 2014

  4. [4]

    Heidt, Nick Merrill, James Pierce, and Joseph Lindley

    Jesse Josua Benjamin, Heidi Biggs, Arne Berger, Julija Rukanskait˙e, 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 (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machiner...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581175 2023

  5. [5]

    Werner Binder. 2024. Technology as (Dis-)Enchantment. AlphaGo and the Meaning-Making of Artificial Intelligence.Cultural Sociology18, 1 (March 2024), 24–47. doi:10.1177/17499755221138720

    work page doi:10.1177/17499755221138720 2024

  6. [6]

    Sofie Krogh Bønlykke, Kamma Amalie Lind Madsen, and Tom Jenkins. 2024. Taking the Bizarre Seriously: Dreams as a Material for Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 699–713. doi:10. 1145/3643834.3661562

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Andy Boucher, Dean Brown, Liliana Ovalle, Andy Sheen, Mike Vanis, William Odom, Doenja Oogjes, and William Gaver. 2018. TaskCam: Designing and Testing an Open Tool for Cultural Probes Studies. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173645 2018

  8. [8]

    Pascal Boyer. 1996. What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representations.The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2, 1 (1996), 83–97. doi:10.2307/3034634 jstor:3034634

    work page doi:10.2307/3034634 1996

  9. [9]

    2021.Thematic analysis: A Practical Guide

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021.Thematic analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, United States, 57–71

    2021

  10. [10]

    Nick Bryan-Kinns, Ashley Noel-Hirst, and Corey Ford. 2024. Using Incongruous Genres to Explore Music Making with AI Generated Content. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 229–240. doi:10.1145/3635636. 3656198

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636 2024

  11. [11]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 188:1–188:21. doi:10.1145/3449287

    work page doi:10.1145/3449287 2021

  12. [12]

    Peter Buse. 2008. Surely Fades Away: Polaroid Photography and the Con- tradictions of Cultural valueFootnote11. The Research for This Article Has Been Generously Supported by Grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council UK and the British Academy. Thanks Also to Barbara Hitchcock and Jennifer Uhrhane at the Polaroid Collections, Waltham, MA, and T...

    work page doi:10.1080/17540760802285577 2008

  13. [13]

    Peter Buse. 2010. Polaroid into Digital: Technology, Cultural Form, and the Social Practices of Snapshot Photography.Continuum24, 2 (April 2010), 215–230. doi:10.1080/10304310903363864

    work page doi:10.1080/10304310903363864 2010

  14. [14]

    Explorers of Unknown Planets

    Baptiste Caramiaux and Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2022. "Explorers of Unknown Planets": Practices and Politics of Artificial Intelligence in Visual Arts.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 477:1–477:24. doi:10.1145/3555578

    work page doi:10.1145/3555578 2022

  15. [15]

    Liuqing Chen, Qianzhi Jing, Yixin Tsang, Qianyi Wang, Ruocong Liu, Duowei Xia, Yunzhan Zhou, and Lingyun Sun. 2024. AutoSpark: Supporting Automobile Appearance Design Ideation with Kansei Engineering and Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3654777.3676337 2024

  16. [16]

    Mike Chopra-Gant. 2016. Pictures or It Didn’t Happen: Photo-nostalgia, iPho- neography and the Representation of Everyday Life.Photography and Culture 9, 2 (May 2016), 121–133. doi:10.1080/17514517.2016.1203632

    work page doi:10.1080/17514517.2016.1203632 2016

  17. [17]

    Cox, Sandy J.J

    Anna L. Cox, Sandy J.J. Gould, Marta E. Cecchinato, Ioanna Iacovides, and Ian Renfree. 2016. Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1389–1397. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/2851581.2892410 2016

  18. [18]

    Hai Dang, Frederik Brudy, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2023. WorldSmith: Iterative and Expressive Prompting for World Building with a Gen- erative AI. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606772

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606772 2023

  19. [19]

    Hai Dang, Sven Goller, Florian Lehmann, and Daniel Buschek. 2023. Choice Over Control: How Users Write with Large Language Models Using Diegetic and Non-Diegetic Prompting. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580969

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580969 2023

  20. [20]

    Hai Dang, Lukas Mecke, Florian Lehmann, Sven Goller, and Daniel Buschek

  21. [21]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.01390 arXiv:2209.01390 [cs]

    How to Prompt? Opportunities and Challenges of Zero- and Few-Shot Learning for Human-AI Interaction in Creative Applications of Generative Models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.01390 arXiv:2209.01390 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.01390

  22. [22]

    Siddhartha Datta, Alexander Ku, Deepak Ramachandran, and Peter Anderson

  23. [23]

    InProceed- ings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (Eds.)

    Prompt Expansion for Adaptive Text-to-Image Generation. InProceed- ings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand, 3449–

  24. [24]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.189

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.189 2024

  25. [25]

    Manoj Deshpande, Jisu Park, Supratim Pait, and Brian Magerko. 2024. Per- ceptions of Interaction Dynamics in Co-Creative AI: A Comparative Study of Interaction Modalities in Drawcto. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 102–116. doi:10.1145/3635636.3656202

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3656202 2024

  26. [26]

    Didion, Krzysztof Wolski, Dennis Wittchen, David Coyle, Thomas Leimkühler, and Paul Strohmeier

    Johanna K. Didion, Krzysztof Wolski, Dennis Wittchen, David Coyle, Thomas Leimkühler, and Paul Strohmeier. 2024. Who Did It? How User Agency Is Influenced by Visual Properties of Generated Images. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–1...

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Mariya Dzhimova and Francisco Tigre Moura. 2024. Calculated Randomness, Control and Creation: Artistic Agency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.Arts 13, 5 (Oct. 2024). doi:10.3390/arts13050152

    work page doi:10.3390/arts13050152 2024

  28. [28]

    Elizabeth Edwards. 2012. Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image*. Annual Review of Anthropology41, Volume 41, 2012 (Oct. 2012), 221–234. doi:10. 1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145708

    2012

  29. [29]

    Verena Fuchsberger, Martin Murer, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2013. Materials, Materiality, and Media. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2853–2862. doi:10.1145/2470654.2481395

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2481395 2013

  30. [30]

    Yuriko Furuhata. 2009. Indexicality as “Symptom”: Photography and Affect. 2009, 174 (April 2009), 181–202. doi:10.1515/semi.2009.032

    work page doi:10.1515/semi.2009.032 2009

  31. [31]

    Amrita Ganguly, Chuan Yan, John Joon Young Chung, Tong Steven Sun, Yoon Kiheon, Yotam Gingold, and Sungsoo Ray Hong. 2024. ShadowMagic: Design- ing Human-AI Collaborative Support for Comic Professionals’ Shadowing. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    work page doi:10.1145/3654777.3676332 2024

  32. [32]

    Katy Ilonka Gero and Lydia B. Chilton. 2019. Metaphoria: An Algorithmic Companion for Metaphor Creation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300526

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300526 2019

  33. [33]

    Peyman Gholami and Robert Xiao. 2023. Diffusion Brush: A Latent Diffusion Model-based Editing Tool for AI-generated Images. arXiv:2306.00219 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00219

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Simone Grassini and Alexander Sævild Ree. 2023. Hope or Doom AI-ttitude? Ex- amining the Impact of Gender, Age, and Cultural Differences on the Envisioned Future Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humankind. InProceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2023 (ECCE ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:...

    work page doi:10.1145/3605655.3605669 2023

  35. [35]

    Varvara Guljajeva and Mar Canet Sola. 2022. Dream Painter: An Interactive Art Installation Bridging Audience Interaction, Robotics, and Creative AI. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 7235–7236. doi:10. 1145/3503161.3549976

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Rebecca Gulotta, Aisling Kelliher, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2017. Digital Systems and the Experience of Legacy. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Edinburgh, United Kingdom)(DIS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 663–674. doi:10.1145/3064663. 3064731

    work page doi:10.1145/3064663 2017

  37. [37]

    Tom Gunning et al. 2004. What’s the Point of an Index? or, Faking Photographs. Nordicom Review25, 1-2 (2004), 39–49

    2004

  38. [38]

    Alicia Guo, Pat Pataranutaporn, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Exploring the Impact of AI Value Alignment in Collaborative Ideation: Effects on Perception, Ownership, Exploring Instant Photography using Generative AI: A Design Probe with the UnReality Camera DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore and Output. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650892 2024

  39. [39]

    Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection.Personal Ubiquitous Comput.5, 3 (Jan. 2001), 201–212. doi:10.1007/ PL00000019

    2001

  40. [40]

    Halperin and Stephanie M

    Brett A. Halperin and Stephanie M. Lukin. 2025. From Camera-Eye to AI: Explor- ing the Interplay of Cinematography and Computational Visual Storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713840

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713840 2025

  41. [41]

    AI is Soulless

    Brett A. Halperin and Daniela K. Rosner. 2025. “AI Is Soulless”: Hollywood Film Workers’ Strike and Emerging Perceptions of Generative Cinema.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.32, 2 (April 2025), 19:1–19:27. doi:10.1145/3716135

    work page doi:10.1145/3716135 2025

  42. [42]

    Halperin, Diana Flores Ruíz, and Daniela K

    Brett A. Halperin, Diana Flores Ruíz, and Daniela K. Rosner. 2025. Underground AI? Critical Approaches to Generative Cinema through Amateur Filmmaking. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713342

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713342 2025

  43. [43]

    Mina Huh, Ding Li, Kim Pimmel, Hijung Valentina Shin, Amy Pavel, and Mira Dontcheva. 2025. VideoDiff: Human-AI Video Co-Creation with Alternatives. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713417

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713417 2025

  44. [44]

    Giulio Jacucci. 2015. Interaction As Performance: Performative Strategies in Designing Interactive Experiences. InUbiquitous Computing, Complexity and Culture. Routledge

    2015

  45. [45]

    Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

    Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. 2023. AI Art and Its Impact on Artists. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–374. doi:10.1145/3600211.3604681

    work page doi:10.1145/3600211.3604681 2023

  46. [46]

    Hannah Johnston and David Thue. 2024. Understanding Visual Artists’ Val- ues and Attitudes towards Collaboration, Technology, and AI. InProceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference (GI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3670947.3670973

    work page doi:10.1145/3670947.3670973 2024

  47. [47]

    Nikhita Joshi and Daniel Vogel. 2025. Writing with AI Lowers Psychological Ownership, but Longer Prompts Can Help. InProceedings of the 7th ACM Con- ference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3719160.3736608

    work page doi:10.1145/3719160.3736608 2025

  48. [48]

    Heekyoung Jung and Erik Stolterman. 2012. Digital Form and Materiality: Propositions for a New Approach to Interaction Design Research. InProceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 645–654. doi:10.1145/2399016.2399115

    work page doi:10.1145/2399016.2399115 2012

  49. [49]

    Udo Kannengiesser and John S. Gero. 2019. Design Thinking, Fast and Slow: A Framework for Kahneman’s Dual-System Theory in Design.Design Science5 (Jan. 2019), e10. doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.9

    work page doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.9 2019

  50. [50]

    Reishiro Kawakami and Sukrit Venkatagiri. 2024. The Impact of Generative AI on Artists. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 79–82. doi:10.1145/3635636.3664263

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3664263 2024

  51. [51]

    Newman, and Allison Woodruff

    Patrick Gage Kelley, Yongwei Yang, Courtney Heldreth, Christopher Moessner, Aaron Sedley, Andreas Kramm, David T. Newman, and Allison Woodruff. 2021. Exciting, Useful, Worrying, Futuristic: Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in 8 Countries. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’21). Association for Compu...

    work page doi:10.1145/3461702.3462605 2021

  52. [52]

    Hancock, and Michael S

    Pranav Khadpe, Ranjay Krishna, Li Fei-Fei, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2020. Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Collab- oration.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 163:1–163:26. doi:10.1145/3415234

    work page doi:10.1145/3415234 2020

  53. [53]

    If the Machine Is As Good As Me, Then What Use Am I?

    Charlotte Kobiella, Yarhy Said Flores López, Franz Waltenberger, Fiona Draxler, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2024. "If the Machine Is As Good As Me, Then What Use Am I?" – How the Use of ChatGPT Changes Young Professionals’ Perception of Productivity and Accomplishment. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Ass...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641964 2024

  54. [54]

    Kristiansen

    Donna M. Kristiansen. 1968. What Is Dada?Educational Theatre Journal20, 3 (1968), 457–462. doi:10.2307/3205188 jstor:3205188

    work page doi:10.2307/3205188 1968

  55. [55]

    Brackney

    Susan Hayes Lane, Tammy Haley, and Dana E. Brackney. 2024. Tool or Tyrant: Guiding and Guarding Generative Artificial Intelligence Use in Nursing Educa- tion.Creative Nursing30, 2 (May 2024), 125–132. doi:10.1177/10784535241247094

    work page doi:10.1177/10784535241247094 2024

  56. [56]

    Susanne K. Langer. 1966. The Cultural Importance of the Arts.Journal of Aesthetic Education1, 1 (1966), 5–12. doi:10.2307/3331349 jstor:3331349

    work page doi:10.2307/3331349 1966

  57. [57]

    2020.Resisting Obsolescence: Polaroid Practices in the ’Digital Age’

    Andrea Lathrop Ligueros. 2020.Resisting Obsolescence: Polaroid Practices in the ’Digital Age’. Doctoral. UCL (University College London)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Susan Laxton. 2016. Moholy’s Doubt. InPhotography and Doubt. Routledge

    2016

  59. [59]

    Mohan Li. 2017. Playfulness, Immediacy, Spontaneity, Simultaneity and Sociality: Towards an Understanding of Smartphone Photographic Practices by Younger Generations of (Chinese) Tourists.Cogent Social Sciences3, 1 (Jan. 2017), 1389623. doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.1389623

    work page doi:10.1080/23311886.2017.1389623 2017

  60. [60]

    Jie Lou, Nianlong Han, Dong Wang, and Xi Pei. 2022. Effects of Mobile Identity on Smartphone Symbolic Use: An Attachment Theory Perspective.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19, 21 (Jan. 2022), 14036. doi:10.3390/ijerph192114036

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph192114036 2022

  61. [61]

    Damien Masson, Sylvain Malacria, Géry Casiez, and Daniel Vogel. 2024. Direct- GPT: A Direct Manipulation Interface to Interact with Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642462

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642462 2024

  62. [62]

    Uwe Messer. 2024. Co-Creating Art with Generative Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Artworks and Artists.Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 1 (Jan. 2024), 100056. doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100056 2024

  63. [63]

    Morandin-Reis, Irene Lorand-Metze, and João B

    Konradin Metze, Rosana C. Morandin-Reis, Irene Lorand-Metze, and João B. Florindo. 2024. Bibliographic Research with ChatGPT May Be Misleading: The Problem of Hallucination.Journal of Pediatric Surgery59, 1 (Jan. 2024), 158. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.08.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.08.018 2024

  64. [64]

    Sergio Minniti. 2016. Polaroid 2.0 Photo-Objects and Analogue Instant Photog- raphy in the Digital Age. (2016)

    2016

  65. [65]

    Buy Film Not Megapixels

    Sergio Minniti. 2020. “Buy Film Not Megapixels”: The Role of Analogue Cameras in the Rematerialization of Photography and the Configuration of Resistant Amateurism. InThe Camera as Actor. Routledge

    2020

  66. [66]

    Sheila C. Murphy. 2018. Shake It Like a Polaroid Picture: The Rise and Fall of an Analog Social Medium. InThe Routledge Companion to Media Technology and Obsolescence. Routledge

    2018

  67. [67]

    Beaumont Newhall. 1941. The Photography of Moholy-Nagy.The Kenyon Review3, 3 (1941), 344–351. jstor:4332261

    1941

  68. [68]

    Block, Donald R

    Mahsan Nourani, Chiradeep Roy, Jeremy E. Block, Donald R. Honeycutt, Tahrima Rahman, Eric D. Ragan, and Vibhav Gogate. 2022. On the Impor- tance of User Backgrounds and Impressions: Lessons Learned from Interactive AI Applications.ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst.12, 4 (Dec. 2022), 28:1–28:29. doi:10.1145/3531066

    work page doi:10.1145/3531066 2022

  69. [69]

    Odom, Abigail J

    William T. Odom, Abigail J. Sellen, Richard Banks, David S. Kirk, Tim Regan, Mark Selby, Jodi L. Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2014. Designing for Slowness, Anticipation and Re-Visitation: A Long Term Field Study of the Photobox. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557178 2014

  70. [70]

    Changhoon Oh, Seonghyeon Kim, Jinhan Choi, Jinsu Eun, Soomin Kim, Juho Kim, Joonhwan Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2020. Understanding How People Reason about Aesthetic Evaluations of Artificial Intelligence. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1169–1181. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236 2020

  71. [71]

    Changhoon Oh, Jungwoo Song, Jinhan Choi, Seonghyeon Kim, Sungwoo Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2018. I Lead, You Help but Only with Enough Details: Understanding User Experience of Co-Creation with Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174223 2018

  72. [72]

    Jonas Oppenlaender. 2024. A Taxonomy of Prompt Modifiers for Text-to-Image Generation.Behaviour & Information Technology43, 15 (Nov. 2024), 3763–3776. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2023.2286532

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2286532 2024

  73. [73]

    Rowan Page and Jian Shin See. 2025. Creative Reflections on Image-Making with Artificial Intelligence: Interactions with a Provocative ’Camera’. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/ 3706598.3713529

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Srishti Palani, David Ledo, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2022. ”I Don’t Want to Feel like I’m Working in a 1960s Factory”: The Practitioner Perspective on Creativity Support Tool Adoption. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501933 2022

  75. [75]

    I’m a Solo Developer but AI Is My New Ill-Informed Co-Worker

    Ruchi Panchanadikar and Guo Freeman. 2024. "I’m a Solo Developer but AI Is My New Ill-Informed Co-Worker": Envisioning and Designing Generative AI to Support Indie Game Development.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 317:1–317:26. doi:10.1145/3677082

    work page doi:10.1145/3677082 2024

  76. [76]

    We Are Visual Thinkers, Not Verbal Thinkers!

    Hyerim Park, Joscha Eirich, Andre Luckow, and Michael Sedlmair. 2024. "We Are Visual Thinkers, Not Verbal Thinkers!": A Thematic Analysis of How Pro- fessional Designers Use Generative AI Image Generation Tools. InProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    D. N. Perkins. 1988. Art as Understanding.Journal of Aesthetic Education22, 1 (1988), 111–131. doi:10.2307/3332969 jstor:3332969 DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Michael Yin, Angela Chiang, and Robert Xiao

    work page doi:10.2307/3332969 1988

  78. [78]

    Chris Peters and Stuart Allan. 2018. Everyday Imagery: Users’ Reflections on Smartphone Cameras and Communication.Convergence24, 4 (Aug. 2018), 357–373. doi:10.1177/1354856516678395

    work page doi:10.1177/1354856516678395 2018

  79. [79]

    Marianne Graves Petersen, Sara Ljungblad, and Maria Håkansson. 2009. De- signing for Playful Photography.New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia15, 2 (Aug. 2009), 193–209. doi:10.1080/13614560903204653

    work page doi:10.1080/13614560903204653 2009

  80. [80]

    James Pierce and Eric Paulos. 2014. Counterfunctional Things: Exploring Possi- bilities in Designing Digital Limitations. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 375–384. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598522

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2598522 2014

Showing first 80 references.