Abstract:Generative AI (GAI) technologies are disrupting professional writing, challenging traditional practices. Recent studies explore GAI adoption experiences of creative practitioners, but we know little about how these experiences evolve into established practices and how GAI resistance alters these practices. To address this gap, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with writing professionals who adopted and/or resisted GAI. Using the theoretical lens of Job Crafting, we identify four strategies professionals employ to reshape their roles. Writing professionals employed GAI resisting strategies to maximize human potential, reinforce professional identity, carve out a professional niche, and preserve credibility within their networks. In contrast, GAI-enabled strategies allowed writers who embraced GAI to enhance desirable workflows, minimize mundane tasks, and engage in new AI-managerial labor. These strategies amplified their collaborations with GAI while reducing their reliance on other people. We conclude by discussing implications of GAI practices on writers' identity and practices as well as crafting theory.
Abstract:Recently, the AI/ML research community has indicated an urgent need to establish Responsible AI (RAI) values and practices as part of the AI/ML lifecycle. Several organizations and communities are responding to this call by sharing RAI guidelines. However, there are gaps in awareness, deliberation, and execution of such practices for multi-disciplinary ML practitioners. This work contributes to the discussion by unpacking co-production challenges faced by practitioners as they align their RAI values. We interviewed 23 individuals, across 10 organizations, tasked to ship AI/ML based products while upholding RAI norms and found that both top-down and bottom-up institutional structures create burden for different roles preventing them from upholding RAI values, a challenge that is further exacerbated when executing conflicted values. We share multiple value levers used as strategies by the practitioners to resolve their challenges. We end our paper with recommendations for inclusive and equitable RAI value-practices, creating supportive organizational structures and opportunities to further aid practitioners.