Hidden Darkness in LLM-Generated Designs: Exploring Dark Patterns in Ecommerce Web Components Generated by LLMs

Recent work has highlighted the risks of LLM-generated content for a wide range of harmful behaviors, including incorrect and harmful code. In this work, we extend this by studying whether LLM-generated web design contains dark patterns. This work evaluated designs of ecommerce web components generated by four popular LLMs: Claude, GPT, Gemini, and Llama. We tested 13 commonly used ecommerce components (e.g., search, product reviews) and used them as prompts to generate a total of 312 components across all models. Over one-third of generated components contain at least one dark pattern. The majority of dark pattern strategies involve hiding crucial information, limiting users' actions, and manipulating them into making decisions through a sense of urgency. Dark patterns are also more frequently produced in components that are related to company interests. These findings highlight the need for interventions to prevent dark patterns during front-end code generation with LLMs and emphasize the importance of expanding ethical design education to a broader audience.

The Double-Edged Sword of Behavioral Responses in Strategic Classification: Theory and User Studies

When humans are subject to an algorithmic decision system, they can strategically adjust their behavior accordingly (``game'' the system). While a growing line of literature on strategic classification has used game-theoretic modeling to understand and mitigate such gaming, these existing works consider standard models of fully rational agents. In this paper, we propose a strategic classification model that considers behavioral biases in human responses to algorithms. We show how misperceptions of a classifier (specifically, of its feature weights) can lead to different types of discrepancies between biased and rational agents' responses, and identify when behavioral agents over- or under-invest in different features. We also show that strategic agents with behavioral biases can benefit or (perhaps, unexpectedly) harm the firm compared to fully rational strategic agents. We complement our analytical results with user studies, which support our hypothesis of behavioral biases in human responses to the algorithm. Together, our findings highlight the need to account for human (cognitive) biases when designing AI systems, and providing explanations of them, to strategic human in the loop.