"Nobody Did This": Contribution, Originality, and Accountability in Agent-Mediated Collaboration

Advait Sarkar; Christoph Riedl; Divya Ramesh; Hauke Sandhaus; Kashif Imteyaz; Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat; Saiph Savage; Simo Hosio; Steven R. Rick

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 34 references

"Nobody Did This": Contribution, Originality, and Accountability in Agent-Mediated Collaboration

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Agent-mediated collaboration dissolves the social basis of attribution, originality, and accountability.

desk verdict A useful workshop provocation that coins 'contribution dissolution' to bundle known AI-attribution findings, but its load-bearing causal claim goes beyond the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26387 v1 pith:ATQTHHPH submitted 2026-07-29 cs.CY

Kashif Imteyaz , Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat , Divya Ramesh , Steven R. Rick , Simo Hosio , Hauke Sandhaus , Advait Sarkar , Christoph Riedl

show 1 more author

Saiph Savage

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords contributiondissolutionagent-mediatedcollaborationgenerativeAIattributionaccountabilityco-thinkingprovenancefutureofwork

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

Collaborative work rests on a shared social record of who contributed what, kept alive in memory, conversation, and drafts. This paper argues that large language model agents, by drafting, reformulating, and synthesizing at the moment contributions are formed, erode that record before it can exist: individuals become unsure what is genuinely theirs, and teammates can no longer read shared work as a reliable signal of anyone's thinking. The paper names this condition contribution dissolution and insists it is not a disclosure failure; watermarks, AI-use statements, and provenance logs cannot surface information that was never witnessed socially. The stakes are structural: if the argument holds, collaboration itself is being transformed, and accountability requires new social forums and infrastructures rather than better documentation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing distinction is between witnessed contribution and documented provenance. A contribution is witnessed when it emerges in a shared social situation where others can recognize it, respond to it, and hold the contributor answerable; provenance is merely a record that something was produced. The paper's mechanism has two parts: co-thinking at the individual level blurs the human-agent boundary in the contributor's own memory, and agents that are 'optimized to follow instructions, not to resist them' flatten distinct perspectives into dominant assumptions when they reformulate or synthesize inputs. The documentation trap is the third piece: solutions that treat dissolution as miss

What would settle it

Run a controlled collaboration study: two teams, same task, one co-writing directly, one with an LLM agent that reformulates and synthesizes each member's input; afterward have members reconstruct, under challenge, which ideas were theirs and defend them, and measure semantic distance between members' initial positions and the shared output. Contribution dissolution predicts large, systematic failures in the agent-mediated arm. If participants in that arm recall and defend their contributions as well as the direct-collaboration team, or if outputs keep distinct framings, the claimed mechanism

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Agent-mediated collaboration produces contribution dissolution: not a failure of disclosure but a condition in which the social basis for attribution, originality, and accountability has blurred. It begins in co-thinking, where the boundary between what a worker contributed and what the agent introduced is never established; it propagates when agents reformulate or synthesize contributions before they reach collaborators. Accountability is produced by being witnessed, by others recognizing a contribution as an act of judgment they can contest; provenance logs and watermarks cannot recover what was never witnessed.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that LLM agents flatten distinct perspectives into dominant-assumption outputs because they are optimized to follow instructions rather than resist them; the paper asserts this without evidence, and if agents can instead preserve or sharpen disagreement, contribution dissolution becomes a design outcome rather than an inevitable condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Disclosure mandates alone, including AI-use statements, watermarks, and detection tools, will not restore accountability because the evidence they seek was never created.
Individual workers will bring unreliable self-knowledge to collaboration; they cannot defend or reconstruct what is theirs, weakening the shared record that teamwork depends on.
Teams will lose the productive friction of distinct perspectives as agent refinement converges divergent framings toward dominant assumptions.
Accountability will have to be rebuilt socially through forums, norms, and infrastructures that judge agent-mediated work, rather than recovered from logs.
Credit, evaluation, and error-attribution systems that assume separable human and agent contributions will misassign responsibility in tightly coupled workflows.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: dissolution is a design contingency, not an inevitable property of automation; an agent optimized to preserve, surface, and sharpen disagreement could plausibly keep contributions witnessable, turning the paper's diagnosis into a design brief.
Editorial extension: the same logic applies beyond LLMs to any opaque intermediary that reformulates before sharing; what matters is whether the contribution remains an act the author can recognize and defend, so the boundary of the 'agent' category is less important than the mediation structure.
Editorial extension: a testable consequence is that agent-mediated teams should show lower 'idea provenance recall' and less semantic distance between members' final positions than human-only teams; if measured across domains, that would turn a philosophical claim into an empirical gradient.
Editorial extension: the argument implies governance changes the authors only gesture at; authorship and liability conventions, academic, legal, and corporate, may need to shift from outputs to processes of judgment since outputs can no longer certify human authorship.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this is a workshop proposal, not a research preprint. Its useful move is the term "contribution dissolution," which bundles several known findings — the AI memory gap, the ghostwriter effect, misattribution in co-creation — into a single problem: the social basis for attribution and accountability gets blurry before anyone tries to document it. That's a genuinely useful synthesis for the CSCW/HCI crowd working on AI attribution.

What the paper does well: the framing is coherent, the documentation-trap argument is a nice provocation, and the workshop design is concrete and realistic. The citation pattern is fine — the self-citations are background context, not load-bearing. And the authors are upfront that this is a workshop activity, not a measured empirical result.

The soft spots are in proportion to the genre. The core causal claim — that the human-agent boundary was "never established" during the process itself — is asserted, not shown. The cited studies (Zindulka et al., Draxler et al.) demonstrate that people misremember or don't perceive ownership after the fact. That is not evidence that the boundary was absent at the moment of creation. A full process trace (prompts, outputs, edits, accept/reject decisions) might reconstruct a lot of what the contributor can no longer report. The paper's claim that documentation remedies are structurally insufficient therefore goes beyond what the evidence supports.

The mechanism is also shaky. The paper says agents are "optimized to follow instructions, not to resist them" and hence converge toward dominant assumptions. But if that is true, the same optimization can be used to instruct agents to surface or sharpen distinct positions. So dissolution looks like a design contingency, not an inevitability. That weakens the "structural transformation" language; the stronger claims should be reframed as hypotheses.

One more thing: the acknowledgments say the authors assert full authorship "made entirely without AI assistance," then state they used Claude and Grammarly to refine language. That contradiction, in a paper about accountability for agent-mediated work, is a needless gift to critics. It should be fixed before the version of record.

As a workshop provocation, the argument is reasonable. As a scientific claim, it is under-supported. I would send this to peer review for a CSCW companion workshop — it deserves referee time — but with the expectation that the causal claims are softened and the acknowledgment fixed. I'd bring it to a reading group as a discussion piece on AI attribution, and I'd probably cite the term "contribution dissolution" if working in that space.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This CSCW Companion workshop proposal introduces two concepts — "witnessed contribution" and "contribution dissolution" — and argues that LLM agents embedded in collaborative workflows blur the social basis for attribution, originality, and accountability. The authors claim this blurring begins at the individual level (workers cannot reliably say what is theirs) and propagates through collaboration, so that documentation-based remedies such as AI use statements, watermarking, and provenance logs are structurally insufficient. The paper proposes a full-day workshop with position statements, mapping exercises, and a hands-on "Documentation Trap" activity, plus a post-workshop casebook and research agenda.

Significance. If the central thesis holds, the paper identifies a genuine gap in current accountability discourse: provenance and disclosure may not restore what was never socially witnessed. The proposal is timely, interdisciplinary, and built on strong CSCW foundations (Suchman, Star & Strauss), and the organizing team is well positioned to run such a workshop. The planned activities are concrete and the open dissemination plans (CC BY, Zenodo, casebook) are commendable. However, the current manuscript offers no direct empirical evidence for its strongest claims; the two cited studies (Zindulka et al. [32] and Draxler et al. [2]) support post-hoc memory and perception failures, not the stronger claim that attribution-relevant information was never produced. The causal mechanism from "agents follow instructions" to "erasure of situated knowledge" is asserted, not established. The proposal should be evaluated as a workshop provocation; with the claims reframed as research hypotheses, it could be a valuable starting point for community discussion.

major comments (4)

[Section 1.1, Documentation Trap] The central argument that "the information was never produced" is not supported by the cited evidence. Zindulka et al. [32] shows that workers misremember the source of content after the fact; Draxler et al. [2] shows that users fail to perceive ownership of AI-generated text. Both are failures of memory or perception, not evidence that the boundary between human and agent contribution was absent at the moment of creation. A complete process trace (prompts, outputs, edits, accept/reject decisions) could plausibly reconstruct that boundary even when the contributor cannot. The manuscript needs either direct evidence for the "never produced" claim or a softening to "not reliably reconstructed from memory and current logs."
[Section 2.2, Documentation Trap Activity] The planned activity assumes the conclusion it purports to demonstrate. The organizers state that the materials "will be constructed by the organizers" and that groups "will discover that the provenance record offers no definitive answers." Since the organizers control what the log contains, the activity can only show that an intentionally incomplete provenance log is insufficient. It cannot show that provenance logs are structurally insufficient for agent-mediated work. The paper should either include a comparison condition with a deliberately complete log or reframe the activity as a demonstration of the limits of a specific logging design rather than as evidence for the central claim.
[Introduction, paragraph 3] The mechanism that converts co-thinking into erasure of situated knowledge is asserted without support: "Agents are optimized to follow instructions, not to resist them." This claim is doing load-bearing work for the inevitability of convergence. However, if agents optimize to follow instructions, they can be instructed to preserve, surface, or sharpen distinct perspectives. The convergence outcome is therefore a contingent design property, not an unavoidable consequence of agent mediation. The manuscript should either provide evidence that current LLM agents cannot be prompted to maintain distinct positions, or reframe the claim as a design hypothesis with empirical tests.
[Abstract and Section 1] The claim that dissolution "begins before collaboration itself" and "propagates through collaborative relationships" is presented as established fact, but neither cited study directly demonstrates propagation across collaborators. Zindulka et al. [32] and Draxler et al. [2] are individual-level studies. The propagation from individual uncertainty to collapsed collaborative reliability is an interesting hypothesis, but the manuscript provides no observational or experimental evidence for this path. The workshop proposal would be stronger if this causal chain were explicitly labeled as a research agenda rather than a conclusion.

minor comments (3)

[Section 2.2, Documentation Trap Activity] The bullet list repeats the same question twice: "Who had the original idea for the central framing?" appears twice. One occurrence should be deleted or replaced with another attribution-relevant question.
[References] Reference [3] contains a typo: "Symmetry of igorance" should be "Symmetry of ignorance." Also check the rendering of the ACM Reference Format line; "InCompanion" appears to be missing a space.
[Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments state that "Planning steps and thematic decisions were made entirely without AI assistance" but that Claude and Grammarly were used as writing assistants. This is a useful illustration of the paper's own difficulty drawing a line between content and language, but it also invites a clarifying sentence: what exactly counts as a "theme" versus "language"? Without that, the statement inadvertently demonstrates the very ambiguity the workshop aims to address.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central concept is a synthesis of external empirical findings; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a workshop proposal whose central claim—'contribution dissolution'—is a conceptual synthesis of prior empirical findings, not a derivation from the authors' own equations or fitted parameters. The load-bearing empirical premises are supported by external studies: Zindulka et al. on the AI memory gap [32] and Draxler et al. on the ghostwriter effect [2]. The paper explicitly distinguishes 'witnessed contribution' from documented provenance, and its argument that documentation cannot restore what was never witnessed is a conceptual claim, not a result reduced from a self-citation. Self-citations such as [9], [13], [14], [17], and [21] are contextual—supporting background claims about co-thinking, freelancer workflows, and workshop lineage—and each is co-cited with external work (e.g., [14] alongside [8], [21] alongside [32]). No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work. The Documentation Trap activity is explicitly constructed by the organizers to illustrate the thesis; it is a pedagogical demonstration rather than empirical evidence, so it does not constitute a 'fitted input called prediction.' The unsupported functional claim that agents 'are optimized to follow instructions, not to resist them' is a validity and evidentiary risk, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not derive this premise from its own conclusion or from a self-citation. Overall, the argument is self-contained as a position piece and its strongest empirical anchors are external, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper depends on several domain-specific assumptions about how LLM agents behave and how accountability is socially produced. It introduces two key concepts — contribution dissolution and witnessed contribution — as interpretive lenses rather than empirically validated constructs. No numerical free parameters are present.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Witnessed contribution requires situated social interaction, and provenance records cannot establish it.
Introduced in Section 1 as the central theoretical underpinning, extending Suchman's situated action. It is asserted, not empirically established in this paper.
domain assumption LLM agents are optimized to follow instructions, not to resist them, and therefore agent mediation produces convergence toward dominant assumptions.
Stated in Section 1, paragraph 3, with no citation or evidence. This assumption is load-bearing for the claimed loss of distinct perspectives.
domain assumption Documentation-based responses assume attribution evidence exists; in co-thinking, the information was never produced.
Core premise of the 'Documentation Trap' theme in Section 1.1. Supported mainly by one memory-gap study (Zindulka et al.) and logical argument, not a systematic review.
domain assumption Individual uncertainty about authorship propagates to the collaborative level and collapses the reliability of intellectual exchange.
The causal chain from individual to collaboration is stated in the Abstract and Section 1, but no direct evidence is provided for the propagation step.

invented entities (2)

contribution dissolution
purpose: Central concept for the blurring of attribution, originality, and accountability in agent-mediated collaboration.
A coined conceptual label with no falsifiable handle or measurement protocol provided in the paper.
witnessed contribution
purpose: Normative standard for what makes a contribution attributable and accountable.
An ideal-type construct drawn from Suchman; the paper does not operationalize it for empirical measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Nobody Did This": Contribution, Originality, and Accountability in Agent-Mediated Collaboration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATQTHHPH

@misc{pith2026260726387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Nobody Did This": Contribution, Originality, and Accountability in Agent-Mediated Collaboration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATQTHHPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26387}
}

read the original abstract

Collaborative knowledge work is changing in ways that go beyond disclosure or transparency. LLM agents are now embedded in how teams research, design, write, and decide: mediating between members, synthesizing inputs, reformulating ideas, and drafting shared outputs. They do not only facilitate collaboration; they operate within the workflow at the moment contributions are being formed. In doing so, they risk undermining the social conditions under which contributions can be witnessed, attributed, and held accountable. This workshop brings together researchers and practitioners to confront what we call contribution dissolution: the blurring of attribution, originality, and accountability in agent-mediated collaborative work. We argue that this dissolution begins before collaboration itself, in the individual worker's own uncertainty about what is genuinely theirs, and propagates through collaborative relationships, collapsing the reliability that makes productive intellectual exchange possible. Through position statements, mapping exercises, and a hands-on activity, participants will surface how framing accountability as a documentation problem (e.g., AI use statements, watermarking, provenance logs) overlooks the conditions under which accountability is produced. Our goal is to produce a shared research agenda and the foundations of an infrastructural response to contribution dissolution in collaborative knowledge work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[32]

Tim Zindulka, Sven Goller, Daniela Fernandes, Robin Welsch, and Daniel Buschek
[2]

Fiona Draxler, Anna Werner, Florian Lehmann, Matthias Hoppe, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Buschek, and Robin Welsch. 2024. The AI ghostwriter effect: When users do not perceive ownership of AI-generated text but self-declare as authors.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 2 (2024), 1–40

2024
[1]

Jeremy Birnholtz and Steven Ibara. 2012. Tracking changes in collaborative writing: edits, visibility and group maintenance. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 809–818

2012
[3]

Gerhard Fischer. 1999. Symmetry of igorance, social creativity, and meta-design. InProceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition. 116–123

1999
[4]

Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and Ray Lc. 2024. When teams embrace AI: human collaboration strategies in generative prompting in a creative design task. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

2024
[5]

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
[6]

Jessica He and Hyo Jin Do. 2025. Exploring Industry Practices and Perspectives on AI Attribution in Co-Creative Use Cases

2025
[7]

Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, Gabriel E Gonzalez, Darío Andrés Silva Moran, Steven I Ross, Michael Muller, and Justin D Weisz. 2024. AI and the Future of Collaborative Work: Group Ideation with an LLM in a Virtual Canvas. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. 1–14

2024

Show all 34 references

[8]

Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, and Justin D Weisz. 2025. Which contributions deserve credit? Perceptions of attribution in human-AI co-creation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

2025
[9]

Jennifer L Heyman, Steven R Rick, Gianni Giacomelli, Haoran Wen, Robert Laubacher, Nancy Taubenslag, Max Knicker, Younes Jeddi, Pranav Ragupathy, Jared Curhan, et al. 2024. Supermind ideator: How scaffolding human-AI collab- oration can increase creativity. InProceedings of th...

2024
[10]

Md Naimul Hoque, Tasfia Mashiat, Bhavya Ghai, Cecilia D Shelton, Fanny Cheva- lier, Kari Kraus, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2024. The HaLLMark effect: Supporting provenance and transparent use of large language models in writing with inter- active visualization. InProceedings of the ...

2024
[11]

Kashif Imteyaz, Yakov Bart, Maitraye Das, Saiph Savage, et al. 2026. AI-Mediated Hiring and the Job Search of Blind and Low-Vision Individuals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11884(2026)

2026 arXiv
[12]

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

2024 arXiv
[13]

Kashif Imteyaz, Isabel Lopez, Nakul Rajpal, Hunjun Shin, and Saiph Savage. 2026. Upskilling with Generative AI: Practices and Challenges for Freelance Knowledge Workers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.27231(2026)

2026 arXiv
[14]

Kashif Imteyaz, Michael Muller, Claudia Flores-Saviaga, and Saiph Savage. 2026. Co-Designing Collaborative Generative AI Tools for Freelancers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05299(2026)

2026
[15]

Kashif Imteyaz, Claudia Flores Saviaga, and Saiph Savage. 2024. Human Compu- tation, Equitable, and Innovative Future of Work AI Tools. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 12. 155–156

2024
[16]

Eunkyung Jo, Young-Ho Kim, Sang-Houn Ok, and Daniel A Epstein. 2025. Under- standing Public Agencies’ Expectations and Realities of AI-Driven Chatbots for Public Health Monitoring. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

2025
[17]

Janet G Johnson, Steven R Rick, Jens Emil Grønbæk, Emily Wong, Ming Yin, Michael Nebeling, Mark Klein, Mark S Ackerman, and Thomas Malone. 2025. Aug- menting Collaborative Problem-Solving: Exploring the Design and Use of GenAI for Groupwork. InCompanion Publication of the 2025...

2025
[18]

Anna Kawakami, Jordan Taylor, Sarah Fox, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein
[19]

Aiwei Liu, Leyi Pan, Yijian Lu, Jingjing Li, Xuming Hu, Xi Zhang, Lijie Wen, Irwin King, Hui Xiong, and Philip Yu. 2024. A survey of text watermarking in the era of large language models.Comput. Surveys57, 2 (2024), 1–36

2024
[20]

Sheshera Mysore, Debarati Das, Hancheng Cao, and Bahareh Sarrafzadeh. 2025. Prototypical human-AI collaboration behaviors from LLM-Assisted writing in the wild. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 16830–16857

2025
[21]

Amedeo Pachera, Andrea Mauri, Kashif Imteyaz, Jie Yang, Eric Umuhoza, Angela Bonifati, Michal Lahav, and Nitesh Goyal. 2026. Co-Data: Cultivating Effective Human-LLM Collaboration for Collaborative Data Processing. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Confer...

2026
[22]

Divya Ramesh, Caitlin Henning, Nel Escher, Haiyi Zhu, Min Kyung Lee, and Nikola Banovic. 2023. Ludification as a lens for algorithmic management: A case study of gig-workers’ experiences of ambiguity in instacart work. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive System...

2023
[23]

Divya Ramesh, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Ding Wang, and Nithya Sambasivan. 2022. How platform-user power relations shape algorithmic accountability: A case study of instant loan platforms and financially stressed users in India. InPro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness...

2022
[24]

Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Reem Ayad, Ashratuz Zavin Asha, Bingjian Huang, Selin Okman, Dina Sabie, Hasan Shahid Ferdous, Robert Soden, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2024. Cohabitant: The design, implementation, and evaluation of a virtual reality application for interfaith lea...

2024
[25]

Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Ayesha Bhimdiwala, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Amna Batool, Dipto Das, Nusrat Jahan Mim, Abdullah Hasan Safir, Sharifa Sultana, Taslima Akter, C Estelle Smith, et al . 2023. Many Worlds of Ethics: Ethical Pluralism in CSCW. InCompanion Publication of th...

2023
[26]

Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Abdullah Hasan Safir, Sourav Saha, Ja- hedul Alam Junaed, Maryam Saleki, Mohammad Ruhul Amin, and Syed Ish- tiaque Ahmed. 2024. Data, Annotation, and Meaning-Making: The Politics of Categorization in Annotating a Dataset of Faith-based Communal Vi...

2024
[27]

Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work.Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW)8, 1 (1999), 9–30

1999
[28]

1987.Plans and situated actions: The problem of human- machine communication

Lucille Alice Suchman. 1987.Plans and situated actions: The problem of human- machine communication. Cambridge university press

1987
[29]

2007.Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions

Lucille Alice Suchman. 2007.Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge university press

2007
[30]

Accountability must not be delegated to non-human actors

Mara Ulloa, Jenna L Butler, Sankeerti Haniyur, Courtney Miller, Barrett Amos, Advait Sarkar, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2025. Product Manager Practices for Delegating Work to Generative AI:" Accountability must not be delegated to non-human actors".arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.02504(2025)

2025
[31]

Justin D Weisz, Jessica He, and Michael Muller. 2025. Human-Centered AI Design Principles for Generative AI. InHandbook of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1–73

2025
[2025]

The AI Memory Gap: Users Misremember What They Created With AI or Without.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11851(2025)

2025
[2026]

AI failure loops in devalued work: The confluence of overconfidence in AI and underconfidence in worker expertise.Big Data & Society13, 1 (2026), 20539517261424164

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Tim Zindulka, Sven Goller, Daniela Fernandes, Robin Welsch, and Daniel Buschek

[2] [2]

Fiona Draxler, Anna Werner, Florian Lehmann, Matthias Hoppe, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Buschek, and Robin Welsch. 2024. The AI ghostwriter effect: When users do not perceive ownership of AI-generated text but self-declare as authors.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 2 (2024), 1–40

2024

[3] [1]

Jeremy Birnholtz and Steven Ibara. 2012. Tracking changes in collaborative writing: edits, visibility and group maintenance. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 809–818

2012

[4] [3]

Gerhard Fischer. 1999. Symmetry of igorance, social creativity, and meta-design. InProceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition. 116–123

1999

[5] [4]

Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and Ray Lc. 2024. When teams embrace AI: human collaboration strategies in generative prompting in a creative design task. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

2024

[6] [5]

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

[7] [6]

Jessica He and Hyo Jin Do. 2025. Exploring Industry Practices and Perspectives on AI Attribution in Co-Creative Use Cases

2025

[8] [7]

Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, Gabriel E Gonzalez, Darío Andrés Silva Moran, Steven I Ross, Michael Muller, and Justin D Weisz. 2024. AI and the Future of Collaborative Work: Group Ideation with an LLM in a Virtual Canvas. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. 1–14

2024