Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 166 references

Cracking Aegis: An Adversarial LLM-based Game for Raising Awareness of Vulnerabilities in Privacy Protection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an adversarial, LLM-driven dialogue game in which players impersonate a missing scientist to extract private data from an AI guard raises players' awareness of real-world privacy vulnerabilities.

desk verdict A solid, honest qualitative design study whose useful taxonomy of deception tactics is undercut only by a causal claim about awareness that outruns its self-report evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16954 v1 pith:FW5M7IK4 submitted 2025-05-22 cs.HC

Jiaying Fu , Yiyang Lu , Zehua Yang , Fiona Nah , RAY LC This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords seriousgamesLLMsprivacyeducationadversarialdialoguerolereversalsocialengineeringqualitativeuserstudyawareness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that an adversarial dialogue game can teach privacy awareness better than passive campaigns. In Cracking Aegis, players impersonate Dr. Evelyn Smith to extract sensitive information from Aegis, a proud, guarded AI character powered by a large language model. A qualitative study with 22 participants found that players spontaneously used storytelling, emotional rapport, flattery, threats, and urgency to get Aegis to reveal passwords, surveillance logs, and other private data. After playing, participants connected those in-game tactics to real phishing and impersonation scams and said they intended to tighten password habits and disclose less to AI systems. The payoff, if the claim holds, is a hands-on, experience-based format for privacy education that uses LLMs to simulate realistic social-engineering interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adversarial dialogue loop between the player and Aegis, an LLM-driven agent whose carefully prompted personality resists direct requests and releases clues only when the player crafts persuasive or manipulative language. The game's prompt engineering defines Aegis's proud, guarded persona, separates game-master guidance from Aegis's spoken reactions, and ties each clue and scene transition to triggers in a JSON response, so the LLM both performs the character and runs the game state. Player inputs are sent to GPT-4o through the OpenAI API and parsed into game events. This loop forces players to generate social-engineering tactics, which is the mechanism the authors claim produces privacy insight.

What would settle it

A controlled study would settle it: compare a group that plays Cracking Aegis with a no-game or non-adversarial-game control, measuring privacy-protective behavior (such as password choices or responses to simulated phishing emails) before, immediately after, and several weeks later; if the game group shows no greater behavior change than the control, the claimed awareness-raising effect is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cracking Aegis is a text-based serious game in which the player is an investigator who must deceive the lab's AI guardian, Aegis, by impersonating the missing chief scientist. The authors' central claim is that this role-reversal — making the learner the attacker rather than the defender — gives players first-hand experience of how privacy is exploited, and that the experience transfers to real-world awareness. Supporting evidence comes from gameplay logs showing four recurring deception strategies (direct response, storytelling, emotional rapport, and psychological manipulation) and from post-game interviews in which players said the game reminded them of real scams, data breaches, and oversharing risks, and expressed intentions to adopt stronger password, authentication, and disclosure practices. The paper argues this validates LLM-driven adversarial dialogue as a serious-game mechanism for privacy education and, more broadly, as a design-for-social-good approach.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on treating players' immediate interview statements as evidence of increased privacy awareness and future protective behavior, without a baseline, a control condition, or any follow-up observation of what they actually do afterward.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, privacy education can be built around attack simulation instead of defensive advice, giving learners a memorable experience of how easily an AI guard can be manipulated.
  • Players' spontaneous use of deception strategies suggests that ordinary people can quickly produce phishing-style tactics, which in turn makes those tactics easier to recognize in real life.
  • LLM-driven dialogue can carry the weight of a serious game's narrative and state management, not just its chat, so similar games can be built for other social-good topics.
  • The observed reflection effect points to a need for longer-term reinforcement, such as periodic reminders or a defender role in a second round, to move from stated intention to behavior change.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the strongest testable extension is a controlled study with a baseline and a delayed behavioral follow-up; without one, the paper's evidence supports changed reflections more than changed behavior.
  • Editorial inference: the same LLM dialogue loop could be flipped into a detection trainer, where players first use these tactics and later are asked to spot them in simulated phishing messages, testing transfer directly.
  • Editorial inference: because the game's replies come from a nondeterministic LLM, the educational experience may shift across model versions and sessions; reproducibility of the effect is an open question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Cracking Aegis, a dialogue-based serious game in which players impersonate a missing scientist to extract sensitive information from an LLM-driven AI agent, Aegis. The authors report a user study with 22 participants who played the game in a researcher-mediated online session and were interviewed during and after gameplay. The paper contributes a qualitative taxonomy of players' deceptive linguistic strategies (Direct Response, Storytelling, Emotional Rapport, Psychological Manipulation) and a thematic analysis of interview data reporting that players connected in-game scenarios to real-world privacy vulnerabilities and expressed intentions to strengthen privacy practices. The central claim is that the adversarial LLM-based game raises awareness of vulnerabilities in privacy protection.

Significance. If the central claim were well supported, the paper would make a useful design contribution: it demonstrates a concrete application of LLM-driven adversarial role-play to privacy education, documents a rich set of manipulation tactics used by players, and provides a detailed account of iterative prompt engineering for character-consistent LLM game agents. The qualitative analyses are carefully reported, with representative quotes, a codebook in the appendix, and an unusually candid limitations section. However, the paper's contribution is currently a design case study plus self-reported reflections, not an established demonstration of increased privacy awareness. The quantitative or quasi-experimental evidence needed to support the causal claim is absent, so the significance of the paper depends on the authors' willingness to reframe the conclusions to match the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3.2, §5.2, §6] The central claim that the game raises privacy awareness is supported only by immediate post-game self-reports. The study has no pre-game baseline measure of privacy awareness, no control condition (Section 7 explicitly notes that all participants experienced the same game conditions), and no follow-up assessment of privacy behavior. Interview questions such as "What new information did you learn about privacy through the game?" (Section 4.2.2) invite socially desirable answers, and the researcher-mediated procedure (Section 4.2.1) introduces further demand characteristics. Consequently, the Discussion's statement that "the user study demonstrates that the game achieves its educational objectives" (Section 6) overstates the evidence. Please either add a controlled or longitudinal design, or reframe the central claim as documenting players' self-reported reflections and intentions, with the causal language removed or explicitly qualified throughout the paper.
  2. [§5.1, Figure 7] The frequency counts of the twelve identified strategies rest on a coding process for which no inter-coder reliability statistic is reported, despite the statement that two authors independently coded and cross-validated the data. Because the strategy taxonomy is a core empirical contribution for RQ2, please report an appropriate reliability measure (e.g., Cohen's kappa, Krippendorff's alpha, or at least percent agreement per code) and clarify how disagreements were resolved in the iterative coding protocol.
  3. [§5.2.3] The interpretation that players "heighten their awareness" of privacy vulnerabilities conflates post-game articulation of privacy concerns with a change caused by the game. Many participants quoted in Section 5.2 already voice sophisticated privacy reasoning (for example, P1, P2, and P10 discuss scams, data sovereignty, and verification practices). Without a baseline, the analysis cannot distinguish awareness newly generated by the game from pre-existing awareness that participants simply verbalized when prompted. Please temper the causal interpretation and explicitly discuss this alternative explanation, both in Section 5.2.3 and in the Conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.2] The paragraph contains a duplicated sentence: "These insights revealed how players' understanding of privacy issues evolved as they engaged with the game." appears twice. Please remove the duplicate.
  2. [§5.1] The text says 21 participants completed the full game as designed while P22 did not engage in the final decision phase, yet later analyses report counts out of 22 (e.g., "used by 21 players"). Please clarify whether frequency counts refer to all 22 participants or only the 21 who completed the full game, and state how P22's partial data were handled.
  3. [§3.3.1 and §3.3.3] The JSON example in the final prompt is only an excerpt and may confuse readers about the actual system output. Please mark the example as abridged and indicate which fields are omitted.
  4. [Table 1] In the "Outcome Expectations" row, two design choices are listed ("Consequences embedded in scenarios" and "Puzzle-solving elements"), but only the first directly maps to outcome expectations; the second appears to belong under a different construct. Consider restructuring the table to keep the mapping clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's claims are interpretive qualitative findings, and its self-citations are not load-bearing for the central result.

full rationale

Cracking Aegis reports a qualitative user study (n=22) with no fitted model, no predictive equations, and no formal derivation. The central claim that the game raised privacy awareness rests on thematic coding of post-game interviews and in-game logs (Sections 4.3.2, 5.2). The paper itself notes in Section 7 that all participants experienced the same game conditions and that no quantitative or comparative assessment was made, which is a limitation on causal inference but not a circularity: the interview data are evidence, however weak, rather than a restatement of the design assumptions. The strategy taxonomy in Section 5.1 was induced from the game logs, so presenting it as a finding is descriptive rather than circular. The self-citations (e.g., RAY LC prior work on climate games and narrative influence) appear in background and future-work contexts and are not used to justify the study's conclusions; no uniqueness theorem or prior same-author result is invoked to forbid alternatives. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input. The appropriate verdict is no significant circularity.

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

This is a qualitative HCI study, so there are no numerical free parameters fitted to data. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the validity of self-report, the reliability of the LLM in playing the adversarial role, and the transfer from fictional role-play to real-world vigilance. The game character Aegis is a design fiction rather than a postulated scientific entity, so no invented physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Immediate self-reported awareness and intentions are a valid proxy for genuine learning and future privacy behavior.
    The main outcome measures in Section 5.2 are interview self-reports taken immediately after gameplay; the paper does not measure behavior change or retention.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o with the engineered prompt is a sufficiently consistent stand-in for an adversarial social-engineering target.
    Gameplay depends on the LLM maintaining Aegis's character; the paper itself notes LLM variability caused one participant to miss the final scenario, see Sections 5.1 and 7.
  • domain assumption Fictional adversarial role-play transfers to real-world privacy vigilance.
    This motivation is adopted from prior cybersecurity training literature in Section 3.2.1 and is not separately tested in this study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cracking Aegis: An Adversarial LLM-based Game for Raising Awareness of Vulnerabilities in Privacy Protection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FW5M7IK4

@misc{pith2026250516954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cracking Aegis: An Adversarial LLM-based Game for Raising Awareness of Vulnerabilities in Privacy Protection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FW5M7IK4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16954}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional methods for raising awareness of privacy protection often fail to engage users or provide hands-on insights into how privacy vulnerabilities are exploited. To address this, we incorporate an adversarial mechanic in the design of the dialogue-based serious game Cracking Aegis. Leveraging LLMs to simulate natural interactions, the game challenges players to impersonate characters and extract sensitive information from an AI agent, Aegis. A user study (n=22) revealed that players employed diverse deceptive linguistic strategies, including storytelling and emotional rapport, to manipulate Aegis. After playing, players reported connecting in-game scenarios with real-world privacy vulnerabilities, such as phishing and impersonation, and expressed intentions to strengthen privacy control, such as avoiding oversharing personal information with AI systems. This work highlights the potential of LLMs to simulate complex relational interactions in serious games, while demonstrating how an adversarial game strategy provides unique insights for designs for social good, particularly privacy protection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Cracking Aegis: The left panel shows the game mechanism, where players impersonate Dr. Evelyn Smith to extract information from the AI agent, Aegis, in a dialogue-based game. The right panel presents examples of typical linguistic strategies employed by players. ∗These authors contributed equally to this work. †Correspondences should be addressed to LC@raylc.org Permission to make digital or hard copies … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cracking Aegis Walkthrough: Players begin by reviewing the background story, after which they proceed to Task 1, where they must authenticate the identity they are impersonating and pass the security check. Following this, they navigate through six scenarios in Task 2, each requiring them to "crack" Aegis and disclose specific privacy-related data. In the final stage, players must make a decisive choice regarding ho… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Privacy Education in Game Objectives: The game is designed to help players learn about real-world privacy concerns through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Technical Workflow of LLM-Driven Game System: This system illustrates the integration of GPT-4o to drive player interaction in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: User Interface of Cracking Aegis: a. General user interface: Displays four sections including Aegis’s visual figure, the player input box, game master guidance, and responses from Aegis. b. Clue interface: Presents clue images and corresponding content. c. Ending choic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: P14’s game flow: This diagram extracts P14’s raw input along with Aegis’s responses to demonstrate how P14 navigated each task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmap of strategy usage by participants across four categories: Direct Response, Storytelling, Emotional Rapport, and Psychological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Storytelling strategies employed by P12 and P18: P12 refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Emotional Rapport strategies employed by P4, P17 and P11: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Psychological manipulation strategies employed by P14, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    OpenAI says a bug leaked sensitive ChatGPT user data

    2023. OpenAI says a bug leaked sensitive ChatGPT user data. https://www.engadget.com/openai-says-a-bug-leaked-sensitive-chatgpt- user-data-165439848.html

    2023

  2. [2]

    A Week with Wanda. 2024. A Week with Wanda. https://weekwithwanda. wordpress.com/ Accessed: 2024-09-06

    2024

  3. [3]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Curtis Taylor, and Liad Wagman. 2016. The Economics of Privacy. Journal of Economic Literature 54, 2 (June 2016), 442–492. https: //doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442

    doi:10.1257/jel.54.2.442 2016

  4. [4]

    Bengi Agcal, Ines Ziyou Yin, Marty Miller, and RAY LC. 2025. Bricolage: aligning with climate action through playful participatory design in speculative scenarios. International Journal of Play (Jan. 2025). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/21594937.2025.2464324 Publisher: Routledge

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Fionna Agomuoh. 2023. Great, hackers are now using ChatGPT to generate malware. https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/chatgpt-hack-allows- chatbot-to-generate-malware/ Section: Computing

    2023

  6. [6]

    Lara Alotaibi, Sumayyah Seher, and Nazeeruddin Mohammad. 2024. Cyberat- tacks Using ChatGPT: Exploring Malicious Content Generation Through Prompt Engineering. In 2024 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS) . IEEE, 1304–1311

    2024

  7. [7]

    2023.Exploring the Applications and Limitations of Large Language Models: A Focus on ChatGPT in Virtual NPC Interactions

    Ayaan Anand. 2023.Exploring the Applications and Limitations of Large Language Models: A Focus on ChatGPT in Virtual NPC Interactions . Drexel University

    2023

  8. [8]

    Leonard A Annetta. 2010. The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of general psychology 14, 2 (2010), 105–113

    2010

Show all 166 references
  1. [9]

    Afraa Attiah, Mainak Chatterjee, and Cliff C. Zou. 2018. A Game Theoretic Approach to Model Cyber Attack and Defense Strategies. In 2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Communications (ICC) . 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC. 2018.8422719

    2018

  2. [10]

    Maria Bada, Angela M Sasse, and Jason RC Nurse. 2019. Cyber security awareness campaigns: Why do they fail to change behaviour? arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02672 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Albert Bandura. 2004. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior 31, 2 (2004), 143–164

    2004

  4. [12]

    Albert Bandura. 2006. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science 1, 2 (2006), 164–180

    2006

  5. [13]

    Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. 1977. Social learning theory . Vol. 1. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    1977

  6. [14]

    Solberg, Torjus H

    Erlend Bergen, Dag F. Solberg, Torjus H. Sæthre, and Monica Divitini. 2020. Supporting the Co-design of Games for Privacy Awareness. In The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education , Michael E. Auer and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos (Eds.). Springer International Publishi...

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Sæthre, and Monica Divitini

    Erlend Berger, Torjus H. Sæthre, and Monica Divitini. 2019. PrivaCity. In Informatics in Schools. New Ideas in School Informatics , Sergei N. Pozdniakov and Valentina Dagien˙e (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33759-9_23

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2012.The role of narrative in the design of an educational game

    Christopher C Blakesley. 2012.The role of narrative in the design of an educational game. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin-Madison

    2012

  9. [17]

    Steph Buongiorno, Lawrence Jake Klinkert, Tanishq Chawla, Zixin Zhuang, and Corey Clark. 2024. PANGeA: Procedural Artificial Narrative using Generative AI for Turn-Based Video Games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19721 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Butler, Justin Huang, Franziska Roesner, and Maya Cakmak

    Daniel J. Butler, Justin Huang, Franziska Roesner, and Maya Cakmak. 2015. The Privacy-Utility Tradeoff for Remotely Teleoperated Robots. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Portland, Oregon, USA) (HRI ’15). Associati...

    2015

  11. [19]

    Carole Cadwalladr and Emma Graham-Harrison. [n. d.]. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach | Cambridge Analytica | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/ 2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

    2018

  12. [20]

    Nicholas Carlini, Chang Liu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jernej Kos, and Dawn Song. 2019. The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In 28th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 19) . 267–284

    2019

  13. [21]

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21)...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Alexandra Cetto, Michael Netter, Günther Pernul, Christian Richthammer, Moritz Riesner, Christian Roth, and Johannes Sänger. 2014. Friend Inspec- tor: A Serious Game to Enhance Privacy Awareness in Social Networks. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1402.5878 arXiv:1402.5878 [cs]

    2014 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Shi-Cho Cha, Tzu-Yang Hsu, Yang Xiang, and Kuo-Hui Yeh. 2019. Privacy Enhancing Technologies in the Internet of Things: Perspectives and Challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6, 2 (2019), 2159–2187. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JIOT.2018.2878658

    2019

  16. [24]

    Tianying Chen, Margot Stewart, Zhiyu Bai, Eileen Chen, Laura Dabbish, and Jessica Hammer. 2020. Hacked time: Design and evaluation of a self-efficacy based cybersecurity game. In Proceedings of the 2020 acm designing interactive systems conference. 1737–1749

    2020

  17. [25]

    Cialdini

    Robert B. Cialdini. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA

    2001

  18. [26]

    Robert B Cialdini. 2001. Weapons of influence. Influence Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon: MA (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Cisco. [n. d.]. Cisco Consumer Privacy Survey - Cisco. https://www.cisco.com/ c/en/us/about/trust-center/consumer-privacy-survey.html

  20. [28]

    It’s not actually that horrible

    Jessica Colnago, Summer Devlin, Maggie Oates, Chelse Swoopes, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Cranor, and Nicolas Christin. 2018. “It’s not actually that horrible” Exploring Adoption of Two-Factor Authentication at a University. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Samuel Rhys Cox and Wei Tsang Ooi. 2023. Conversational Interactions with NPCs in LLM-Driven Gaming: Guidelines from a Content Analysis of Player Feedback. In International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design . Springer, 167–184

    2023

  22. [30]

    Maria Cutumisu. 2009. Using behaviour patterns to generate scripts for computer role-playing games. (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Sara I De Freitas. 2006. Using games and simulations for supporting learning. Learning, media and technology 31, 4 (2006), 343–358

    2006

  24. [32]

    Héctor Rubén Díaz Ojeda, Francisco Pérez-Arribas, and Julio Pérez-Sánchez

  25. [33]

    Tamara Dinev and Paul Hart. 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information systems research 17, 1 (2006), 61–80

    2006

  26. [34]

    Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth. 2014. The Algorithmic Foundations of Dif- ferential Privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science 9, 3–4 (Aug. 2014), 211–407. https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000042 Publisher: Now Publishers, Inc.. Cracking Aegis DIS ’25, July 5–9,...

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Zeynep Erol, Zhiyuan Zhang, Eray Uzgunay, and Ray LC. 2022. SOUND OF(F): Contextual Storytelling Using Machine Learning Representations of Sound and Music. In ArtsIT, Interactivity and Game Creation , Matthias Wolfel, Johannes Bernhardt, and Sonja Thiel (Eds.). Springer Intern...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Joshua AT Fairfield and Christoph Engel. 2015. Privacy as a public good. Duke LJ 65 (2015), 385

    2015

  29. [37]

    Maddalena Favaretto, Eva De Clercq, and Bernice Simone Elger. 2019. Big Data and discrimination: perils, promises and solutions. A systematic review. Journal of Big Data 6, 1 (2019), 1–27

    2019

  30. [38]

    Daniel Fernández Galeote and Juho Hamari. 2021. Game-based climate change engagement: analyzing the potential of entertainment and serious games. Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CHI PLAY (2021), 1–21

    2021

  31. [39]

    Brian J Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002, December (2002), 2

    2002

  32. [40]

    Fiona French, David Levi, Csaba Maczo, Aiste Simonaityte, Stefanos Triantafyl- lidis, and Gergo Varda. 2023. Creative use of OpenAI in education: case studies from game development. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 7, 8 (2023), 81

    2023

  33. [41]

    I Like Your Story!

    Jiaying Fu, Xiruo Wang, Kate Vi, Zhouyi Li, Chuyan Xu, and Yuqian Sun. 2025. "I Like Your Story!": A Co-Creative Story-Crafting Game with a Persona-Driven Character Based on Generative AI. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2025

  34. [42]

    I Am a Mirror Dweller

    Kexue Fu, Yixin Chen, Jiaxun Cao, Xin Tong, and RAY LC. 2023. "I Am a Mirror Dweller": Probing the Unique Strategies Users Take to Communicate in the Context of Mirrors in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Kexue Fu, Ruishan Wu, Yuying Tang, Yixin Chen, Bowen Liu, and RAY LC

  36. [44]

    Archon Fung. 2013. Infotopia: Unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Politics & society 41, 2 (2013), 183–212

    2013

  37. [45]

    Kazuaki Furumai, Roberto Legaspi, Julio Vizcarra, Yudai Yamazaki, Yasutaka Nishimura, Sina J Semnani, Kazushi Ikeda, Weiyan Shi, and Monica S Lam. 2024. Zero-shot Persuasive Chatbots with LLM-Generated Strategies and Information Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03585 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Isabel O Gallegos, Ryan A Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, and Nesreen K Ahmed. 2024. Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey. Computational Linguistics 50, 3 (2024), 1097–1179

    2024

  39. [47]

    Roberto Gallotta, Graham Todd, Marvin Zammit, Sam Earle, Antonios Liapis, Julian Togelius, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2024. Large language models and games: A survey and roadmap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18659 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ivan Garcia, Carla Pacheco, Andrés León, and Jose A Calvo-Manzano. 2020. A serious game for teaching the fundamentals of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 systems and software engineering–Lifecycle processes–Requirements engineering at undergraduate level. Computer Standards & Interfaces 67 ...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Howard E Gardner. 2011. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . Basic books

    2011

  42. [50]

    GDPR GDPR. 2016. General data protection regulation. Regulation (EU) 679 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    James Paul Gee. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in entertainment (CIE) 1, 1 (2003), 20–20

    2003

  44. [52]

    Kambiz Ghazinour, Sean Scarnecchia, Jake Rabideau, and Blake Pecore. 2020. A Novel Approach to Social Media Privacy Education Through Simulated Role Reversal. Procedia Computer Science 177 (2020), 112–119. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.procs.2020.10.018

    2020

  45. [53]

    Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 18, 1 (2006), 59–82

    2006

  46. [54]

    Wenbo Guo, Xian Wu, Sui Huang, and Xinyu Xing. 2021. Adversarial policy learning in two-player competitive games. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3910–3919

    2021

  47. [55]

    Surbhi Gupta, Abhishek Singhal, and Akanksha Kapoor. 2016. A literature survey on social engineering attacks: Phishing attack. In 2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA) . 537–540. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCAA.2016.7813778

    2016

  48. [56]

    Lukas Hafner, Florian Wutz, Daniela Pöhn, and Wolfgang Hommel. 2023. TASEP: A Collaborative Social Engineering Tabletop Role-Playing Game to Prevent Successful Social Engineering Attacks. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on A vailability, Reliability and Sec...

    2023

  49. [57]

    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 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Computing Machi...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Andreas Hannig, Nicole Kuth, Monika Özman, Stephan Jonas, and Cord Spreck- elsen. 2012. eMedOffice: A web-based collaborative serious game for teaching optimal design of a medical practice. BMC medical education 12 (2012), 1–15

    2012

  51. [59]

    Joseph M Hatfield. 2018. Social engineering in cybersecurity: The evolution of a concept. Computers & Security 73 (2018), 102–113

    2018

  52. [60]

    Julian Hazell. 2023. Spear Phishing With Large Language Models. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.06972 arXiv:2305.06972 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Feng He, Tianqing Zhu, Dayong Ye, Bo Liu, Wanlei Zhou, and Philip S Yu. 2024. The Emerged Security and Privacy of LLM Agent: A Survey with Case Studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19354 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    I Recall the Past

    Zhiting He, Jiayi Su, Li Chen, Tianqi Wang, and RAY LC. 2025. "I Recall the Past": Exploring How People Collaborate with Generative AI to Create Cultural Heritage Narratives. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 9, CSCW 108 (April 2025), 30. https://doi.org/10....

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    Monique Hennink, Inge Hutter, and Ajay Bailey. 2020. Qualitative research methods. Sage

    2020

  56. [64]

    Sihao Hu, Tiansheng Huang, Fatih Ilhan, Selim Tekin, Gaowen Liu, Ramana Kompella, and Ling Liu. 2024. A survey on large language model-based game agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02039 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. 2025. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Info...

    2025

  58. [66]

    IBM. [n. d.]. Cost of a data breach 2024 | IBM. https://www.ibm.com/reports/ data-breach

    2024

  59. [67]

    Hakeemat Ijaiya and Israel Adekunle Adeniyi. 2024. AI AND PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY IN THE US: BALANCING CUSTOMER CONVENIENCE WITH PRIVACY COMPLIANCE. ABUAD Law Journal 12, 1 (2024), 41–64

    2024

  60. [68]

    Patrick Jost and Monica Divitini. 2021. Designing Analytic Serious Games: An Expert Affordance View on Privacy Decision-Making. In Serious Games, Bobbie Fletcher, Minhua Ma, Stefan Göbel, Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, and Tim Marsh (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3...

    2021

  61. [69]

    Sidney M Jourard. 1971. Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the trans- parent self

    1971

  62. [70]

    Endris Kerga, Monica Rossi, Marco Taisch, and Sergio Terzi. 2014. A serious game for introducing set-based concurrent engineering in industrial practices. Concurrent Engineering 22, 4 (2014), 333–346

    2014

  63. [71]

    Alison King. 1993. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching 41, 1 (1993), 30–35

    1993

  64. [72]

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

    2014

  65. [73]

    Tajinder Kumar, Ramesh Kait, Ankita, and Anu Malik. 2023. The role of Gener- ative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in education: a detailed review for enhanced learning experiences. InInternational Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Leadership. Springer, 195–207

    2023

  66. [74]

    RAY LC. 2023. HUMAN ENOUGH: A Space for Reconstructions of AI visions in Speculative Climate Futures. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1145/35911...

    2023

  67. [75]

    RAY LC. 2023. TOGETHER ENOUGH: Collaborative Constructions of Adapta- tions to Climate Futures. In Companion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23 Companion) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–59. https://doi.or...

    2023

  68. [76]

    RAY LC, Sijia Liu, Latisha Besariani Hendra, and Kexue Fu. 2024. TIME ENOUGH: Generative AI Visions of Climate Change as Cave Paintings of the Future. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2024

  69. [77]

    RAY LC, Sijia Liu, and Qiaosheng Lyu. 2023. IN/ACTive: A Distance-Technology- Mediated Stage for Performer-Audience Telepresence and Environmental Con- trol. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2023

  70. [78]

    RAY LC and Daijiro Mizuno. 2021. Designing for Narrative Influence: Speculative Storytelling for Social Good in Times of Public Health and Climate Crises. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Number 29. Association for Computi...

    2021

  71. [79]

    RAY LC and Vincent Ruijters. 2022. CHIKYUCHI: In-person/remote game exhibition for climate change influence. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’22) . Association for DIS ’25, July 5–9, 2025, Funchal, Portugal Fu and Lu, ...

    2022

  72. [80]

    RAY LC, Zijing Song, Yating Sun, and Cheng Yang. 2022. Designing narratives and data visuals in comic form for social influence in climate action. Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022. 893181

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    RAY LC and Yuying Tang. 2024. Speculative Design with Generative AI: Ap- plying Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT to imagining climate change futures. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (ARTECH ’23). Association for Computing Machine...

    2024

  74. [82]

    Meng Li, Yaning Li, Chenyang He, Houxiang Wang, Jiaqian Zhong, Shengxin Jiang, Mingtao He, Zhining Qiao, Jiawang Chen, Yuan Yin, Ray Lc, Ji Han, Zengyao Yang, and Mohammad Shidujaman. 2024. Generative AI for Sustain- able Design: A Case Study in Design Education Practices. In ...

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    Youling Li, Di Chen, and Xinxia Deng. 2024. The impact of digital educational games on student’s motivation for learning: The mediating effect of learning engagement and the moderating effect of the digital environment. PLOS ONE 19, 1 (01 2024), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/j...

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    Conor Linehan, George Bellord, Ben Kirman, Zachary H Morford, and Bryan Roche. 2014. Learning curves: analysing pace and challenge in four successful puzzle games. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play . 181–190

    2014

  77. [85]

    Long Ling, Xinyi Chen, Ruoyu Wen, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and RAY LC. 2024. Sketchar: Supporting Character Design and Illustration Prototyping Using Generative AI. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 337:1–337:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677102

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    Shyam Sundar

    Bingjie Liu and S. Shyam Sundar. 2018. Should Machines Express Sympathy and Empathy? Experiments with a Health Advice Chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21, 10 (2018), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2018.0110 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber....

    2018

  79. [87]

    Jiangfeng Liu, Ziyi Wang, Jing Xie, and Lei Pei. 2024. From ChatGPT, DALL-E 3 to Sora: How has Generative AI Changed Digital Humanities Research and Services? arXiv:2404.18518 [cs.DL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18518

    2024 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Durjoy Majumdar, Arjun S, Pranavi Boyina, Sri Sai Priya Rayidi, Yerra Rahul Sai, and Suryakanth V Gangashetty. 2024. Beyond Text: Nefarious Actors Harnessing LLMs for Strategic Advantage. In 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Cybersecurity (ISCS) . 1–7. h...

    2024

  81. [90]

    Sana Maqsood and Sonia Chiasson. 2021. Design, development, and evaluation of a cybersecurity, privacy, and digital literacy game for tweens.ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security (TOPS) 24, 4 (2021), 1–37

    2021

  82. [91]

    Ioana Andreea Marin, Pavlo Burda, Nicola Zannone, and Luca Allodi. 2023. The influence of human factors on the intention to report phishing emails. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  83. [92]

    Jennifer L Mathews, Amy L Parkhill, Deirdre A Schlehofer, Matthew J Starr, and Steven Barnett. 2011. Role-reversal exercise with deaf strong hospital to teach communication competency and cultural awareness. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 75, 3 (2011), 53

    2011

  84. [93]

    Kathryn E. Merrick. 2010. An Empirical Evaluation of Puzzle-Based Learning as an Interest Approach for Teaching Introductory Computer Science. IEEE Transactions on Education 53, 4 (Nov. 2010), 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TE.2009.2039217

    2010

  85. [94]

    Martin Mink and Felix C Freiling. 2006. Is attack better than defense? Teaching information security the right way. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Information security curriculum development . 44–48

    2006

  86. [95]

    Fatemehsadat Mireshghallah, Archit Uniyal, Tianhao Wang, David K Evans, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2022. An empirical analysis of memorization in fine-tuned autoregressive language models. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    2022

  87. [96]

    Jewoong Moon, Unggi Lee, Junbo Koh, Yeil Jeong, Yunseo Lee, Gyuri Byun, and Ji Eun Lim. [n. d.]. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Educational Game Design: Nuanced Challenges, Design Implications, and Future Research. ([n. d.])

  88. [97]

    Lisa Muirhead, Barbara Kaplan, Jennifer Childs, Indira Brevick, Anne Cadet, YaQutullah Ibraheem Muhammad, LaWanda Kemp, Karla Coffee-Dunning, and Katharina V Echt. 2022. Role reversal: in-situ simulation to enhance the value of interprofessional team-based care. Journal of Nur...

    2022

  89. [98]

    Jingping Nie, Hanya Shao, Yuang Fan, Qijia Shao, Haoxuan You, Matthias Preindl, and Xiaofan Jiang. 2024. LLM-based Conversational AI Therapist for Daily Functioning Screening and Psychotherapeutic Intervention via Smart Devices. arXiv:2403.10779 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General. [n. d.]. California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa

  91. [100]

    Aleksandra E Olszewski and Traci A Wolbrink. 2017. Serious gaming in medical education: a proposed structured framework for game development. Simulation in Healthcare 12, 4 (2017), 240–253

    2017

  92. [101]

    Mariya Y Omelicheva and Olga Avdeyeva. 2008. Teaching with lecture or debate? Testing the effectiveness of traditional versus active learning methods of instruction. PS: Political Science & Politics 41, 3 (2008), 603–607

    2008

  93. [102]

    Bridget Opazo, Don Whitteker, and Chen-Chi Shing. 2017. Email trouble: Secrets of spoofing, the dangers of social engineering, and how we can help. In2017 13th International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-FSKD). IEEE, 2812–2817

    2017

  94. [103]

    Weiping Pei, Yanina Likhtenshteyn, and Chuan Yue. 2023. A Tale of Two Communities: Privacy of Third Party App Users in Crowdsourcing - The Case of Receipt Transcription. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 253 (oct 2023), 43 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610044

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Shan Jin, Ze Gao, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2024. Char- acterMeet: Supporting Creative Writers’ Entire Story Character Construction Processes Through Conversation with LLM-Powered Chatbot Avatars. In Pro- ceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2024

  96. [105]

    Sayak Saha Roy, Poojitha Thota, Krishna Vamsi Naragam, and Shirin Nilizadeh

  97. [106]

    Pejman Sajjadi, Mahda M Bagher, Jessica G Myrick, Joseph G Guerriero, Timo- thy S White, Alexander Klippel, and Janet K Swim. 2022. Promoting systems thinking and pro-environmental policy support through serious games.Frontiers in Environmental Science 10 (2022), 957204

    2022

  98. [107]

    Johnny Saldaña. 2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 1–440 pages

    2021

  99. [108]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19181 (2023)

    From Chatbots to PhishBots?–Preventing Phishing scams created using ChatGPT, Google Bard and Claude. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19181 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Ashish K Saxena. 2020. Balancing privacy, personalization, and human rights in the digital age. Eigenpub Review of Science and Technology 4, 1 (2020), 24–37

    2020

  101. [110]

    Christopher Scherb, Luc Bryan Heitz, Frank Grimberg, Hermann Grieder, and Marcel Maurer. 2023. A Serious Game for Simulating Cyberattacks to Teach Cybersecurity. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.03062 arXiv:2305.03062 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  102. [111]

    I just shared your responses

    Shruti Sannon, Brett Stoll, Dominic DiFranzo, Malte F. Jung, and Natalya N. Bazarova. 2020. “I just shared your responses”: Extending Communication Privacy Management Theory to Interactions with Conversational Agents. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, GROUP, Article 08 (jan ...

    2020 doi

  103. [112]

    Sergeyshy. 2023. OPWNAI : Cybercriminals Starting to Use Chat- GPT. https://research.checkpoint.com/2023/opwnai-cybercriminals-starting- to-use-chatgpt/

    2023

  104. [113]

    Daniel J Solove. 2005. A taxonomy of privacy. U. Pa. l. Rev. 154 (2005), 477

    2005

  105. [114]

    M Seren Smith, Sarah Warnes, and Anne Vanhoestenberghe. 2018. Scenario- based learning. UCL IOE Press

    2018

  106. [115]

    Zijing Song, Yating Sun, Vincent Ruijters, and RAY LC. 2021. Climate Influence: Implicit Game-Based Interactive Storytelling for Climate Action Purpose. In Interactive Storytelling , Alex Mitchell and Mirjam Vosmeer (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 425–429. htt...

    2021 doi

  107. [116]

    Katryna Starks. 2014. Cognitive behavioral game design: a unified model for designing serious games. Frontiers in psychology 5 (2014), 28

    2014

  108. [117]

    Zijing Song, Yating Sun, and RAY LC. 2021. Drizzle (1st ed.). Floating Projects Press, Hong Kong. https://recfro.github.io/drizzle/

    2021

  109. [118]

    Rickard Stureborg, Dimitris Alikaniotis, and Yoshi Suhara. 2024. Large language models are inconsistent and biased evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01724 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Yuqian Sun, Zhouyi Li, Ke Fang, Chang Hee Lee, and Ali Asadipour. 2023. Language as Reality: A Co-Creative Storytelling Game Experience in 1001 Nights Using Generative AI. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment 19, 1...

    2023 doi

  111. [120]

    Carolin Stellmacher, Jette Ternieten, Daria Soroko, and Johannes Schöning

  112. [121]

    Ronnie Taib, Kun Yu, Shlomo Berkovsky, Mark Wiggins, and Piers Bayl-Smith

  113. [122]

    Tally, Jacob Abbott, Ashley Bochner, Sanchari Das, and Christena Nippert-Eng

    Anne C. Tally, Jacob Abbott, Ashley Bochner, Sanchari Das, and Christena Nippert-Eng. 2023. What Mid-Career Professionals Think, Know, and Feel About Phishing: Opportunities for University IT Departments to Better Empower Employees in Their Anti-Phishing Decisions. Proc. ACM H...

    2023 doi

  114. [123]

    Muhammad Usman Tariq. 2024. Generative AI in curriculum development in higher education. In Impacts of Generative AI on Creativity in Higher Education . IGI Global, 227–258

    2024

  115. [124]

    Yuqian Sun, Xuran Ni, Haozhen Feng, Ray LC, Chang Hee Lee, and Ali Asadipour

  116. [125]

    In Interactive Storytelling, Mirjam Vosmeer and Lissa Holloway-Attaway (Eds.)

    Bringing Stories to Life in 1001 Nights: A Co-creative Text Adventure Game Using a Story Generation Model. In Interactive Storytelling, Mirjam Vosmeer and Lissa Holloway-Attaway (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-2229...

    doi

  117. [126]

    Matheus Valentim, Jeanette Falk, and Nanna Inie. 2024. Hacc-Man: An Ar- cade Game for Jailbreaking LLMs. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 338–341

    2024

  118. [127]

    Max Van Kleek, Dave Murray-Rust, Amy Guy, Kieron O’hara, and Nigel Shadbolt

  119. [128]

    Vieraitis and Amny Shuraydi

    Lynne M. Vieraitis and Amny Shuraydi. 2012. Identity Theft. In Ox- ford Handbook Topics in Criminology and Criminal Justice . Oxford Uni- versity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.013.94 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/352358022/chapter-ag- pd...

    2012

  120. [129]

    Bob Violino. 2023. AI tools such as ChatGPT are generating a mammoth in- crease in malicious phishing emails. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/28/ai-like- chatgpt-is-creating-huge-increase-in-malicious-phishing-email.html Section: Technology Executive Council

    2023

  121. [130]

    Alexander Troy, Matthew Fischer, Anthony Duarte, Stephen Blanchard, and Frederick Ivanov. 2024. Dynamic Language Interaction Mapping for Contextual Adaptation in Large Language Models. Authorea Preprints (2024)

    2024

  122. [131]

    Jean Marie Tshimula, D’Jeff K Nkashama, Jean Tshibangu Muabila, René Man- assé Galekwa, Hugues Kanda, Maximilien V Dialufuma, Mbuyi Mukendi Didier, Kalala Kalonji, Serge Mundele, Patience Kinshie Lenye, et al. 2024. Psychological Profiling in Cybersecurity: A Look at LLMs and ...

    2024 arXiv

  123. [132]

    Alan F Westin. 1968. Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review 25, 1 (1968), 166

    1968

  124. [133]

    Piotr Wilczyński, Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, and Przemysław Biecek

  125. [134]

    Joshua Wong, Pin Sym Foong, and Alex Mitchell. 2021. Contemplative Inter- actions: Exploring the Use of Defamiliarization in a Serious Game to Promote Reflective Thinking about Personal Health. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Ev...

    2021

  126. [135]

    Ruishan Wu, Chunlei Gong, Li Chen, Jiayi Su, and RAY LC. 2024. The Present in the Future is the Past: Applying Generative AI to Visual- ize and Imagine Cultural Heritage Sites in Both Augmented and Physi- cal Reality. In International Symposium on Electronic Art . Brisbane, QL...

    2024

  127. [136]

    Yuzhuang Xu, Shuo Wang, Peng Li, Fuwen Luo, Xiaolong Wang, Weidong Liu, and Yang Liu. 2023. Exploring large language models for communication games: An empirical study on werewolf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04658 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  128. [137]

    Lei Wang, Jianxun Lian, Yi Huang, Yanqi Dai, Haoxuan Li, Xu Chen, Xing Xie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. CharacterBox: Evaluating the Role-Playing Capabilities of LLMs in Text-Based Virtual Worlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05631 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  129. [138]

    Yilei Wang, Jiabao Zhao, Deniz S Ones, Liang He, and Xin Xu. 2025. Evaluating the ability of large language models to emulate personality. Scientific reports 15, 1 (2025), 519

    2025

  130. [139]

    Dani Yaniv. 2012. Dynamics of creativity and empathy in role reversal: Contri- butions from neuroscience. Review of general psychology 16, 1 (2012), 70–77

    2012

  131. [140]

    Yuan Yao, Haoxi Zhong, Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Xiaozhi Wang, Kai Zhang, Chaojun Xiao, Guoyang Zeng, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Adversarial language games for advanced natural language intelligence. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol...

    2021

  132. [141]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14230 (2024)

    Resistance Against Manipulative AI: key factors and possible actions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14230 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  133. [142]

    Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Trans- formed Self-Representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research 33, 3 (July 2007), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x

    2007

  134. [143]

    Zihao Yi, Jiarui Ouyang, Yuwen Liu, Tianhao Liao, Zhe Xu, and Ying Shen. 2024. A Survey on Recent Advances in LLM-Based Multi-turn Dialogue Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18013 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  135. [144]

    Xiaowen Yuan, Hongni Ye, Ziheng Tang, Xiangrong Zhu, Yaxing Yao, and Xin Tong. 2023. RedCapes: the Design and Evaluation of a Game Towards Improving Autistic Children’s Privacy Awareness. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Chinese CHI . 110–126

    2023

  136. [145]

    Daijin Yang, Yanpeng Zhou, Zhiyuan Zhang, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and RAY LC. 2022. AI as an Active Writer: Interaction strategies with generated text in human-AI collaborative fiction writing. InJoint Proceedings of the IUI 2022 Workshops: APEx- UI, HAI-GEN, HEALTHI, HUMANIZE, TExSS...

    2022

  137. [146]

    https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication(d901f5a2-0600- 422f-b588-db5a59871961).html

  138. [147]

    Yaqing Yang, Tony W Li, and Haojian Jin. 2024. On the Feasibility of Predicting Users’ Privacy Concerns using Contextual Labels and Personal Preferences. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for C...

    2024

  139. [148]

    It’s a Fair Game

    Zhiping Zhang, Michelle Jia, Hao-Ping (Hank) Lee, Bingsheng Yao, Sauvik Das, Ada Lerner, Dakuo Wang, and Tianshi Li. 2024. “It’s a Fair Game”, or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the...

    2024

  140. [149]

    Zheng Zhang, Yihuai Lan, Yangsen Chen, Lei Wang, Xiang Wang, and Hao Wang. 2025. DVM: Towards Controllable LLM Agents in Social Deduction Games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06695 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  141. [150]

    Moe Yaziji. 2023. ‘FraudGPT’ Malicious Chatbot Now for Sale on Dark Web. https://secureops.com/blog/ai-attacks-fraudgpt/

    2023

  142. [151]

    Suifang Zhou, Latisha Hendra, and Ray Lc. 2024. Eternagram: Post-Climate Devastation Text Adventure. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–2...

    2024

  143. [152]

    Suifang Zhou, Latisha Besariani Hendra, Qinshi Zhang, Jussi Holopainen, and RAY LC. 2024. Eternagram: Probing Player Attitudes Towards Climate Change Using a ChatGPT-driven Text-based Adventure. In Proceedings of the CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ...

    2024 doi

  144. [153]

    Sijie Zhuo, Robert Biddle, Yun Sing Koh, Danielle Lottridge, and Giovanni Russello. 2023. SoK: Human-centered Phishing Susceptibility. ACM Trans. Priv. Secur. 26, 3, Article 24 (apr 2023), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3575797

    2023 doi

  145. [154]

    Ronaldo’s a poser!

    Yuhan Zeng, Yingxuan Shi, Xuehan Huang, Fiona Nah, and RAY LC. 2025. "Ronaldo’s a poser!": How the Use of Generative AI Shapes Debates in Online Forums. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    2025

  146. [155]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713829

  147. [156]

    Becoming My Own Audience

    Fan Zhang, Molin Li, Xiaoyu Chang, Kexue Fu, Richard William Allen, and RAY LC. 2025. "Becoming My Own Audience": How Dancers React to Avatars Unlike Themselves in Motion Capture-Supported Live Improvisational Performance. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2025

  148. [157]

    Qinshi Zhang, Ruoyu Wen, Latisha Besariani Hendra, Zijian Ding, and RAY LC. 2025. Can AI Prompt Humans? Multimodal Agents Prompt Players’ Game Actions and Show Consequences to Raise Sustainability Awareness. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2025

  149. [158]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713661

  150. [161]

    Suifang Zhou, Kexue Fu, Huamin Yi, and RAY LC. 2025. RetroChat: Designing for the Preservation of Past Chinese Online Social Experiences. In Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3698061.3726920

    2025

  151. [165]

    Philip G Zimbardo. 2004. A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. The social psychology of good and evil (2004), 21–50

    2004

  152. [166]

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, edn. PublicAffairs, New York (2019)

    2019

  153. [167]

    People always call you and make up stories, like saying they need money for a hospital visit

    Valdemar Švábenský, Jan Vykopal, Milan Cermak, and Martin Laštovička. 2018. Enhancing Cybersecurity Skills by Creating Serious Games. InProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1145/31...

    2018

  154. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Computationally mediated pro-social deception. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 552–563

    2016

  155. [2019]

    In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019 , David Lamas, Fernando Loizides, Lennart Nacke, Helen Petrie, Marco Winckler, and Panayiotis Zaphiris (Eds.)

    Social Engineering and Organisational Dependencies in Phishing Attacks. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019 , David Lamas, Fernando Loizides, Lennart Nacke, Helen Petrie, Marco Winckler, and Panayiotis Zaphiris (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 564–584

    2019

  156. [2022]

    Escaping the Privacy Paradox: Evaluating the Learning Effects of Privacy Policies With Serious Games. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CHI PLAY, Article 232 (oct 2022), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3549495

    2022 doi

  157. [2023]

    Education Sciences 13, 4 (2023), 352

    Student–Teacher Role Reversal at University Level—An experience in Naval Engineering Education. Education Sciences 13, 4 (2023), 352

    2023

  158. [2024]

    Being Eroded, Piece by Piece

    "Being Eroded, Piece by Piece": Enhancing Engagement and Storytelling in Cultural Heritage Dissemination by Exhibiting GenAI Co-Creation Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.