Understanding the Role of “AI Friends” in Children’s Sociocognitive Development
For years, the industry has focused on making models bigger. This training time scaling (Kaplan et al., 2020) made models highly fluent, similar to a student who memorised the entire textbook. But fluency is not the same as reasoning. Large language models (LLMs) still struggle with complex logic, maths or coding tasks because they respond too quickly, predicting the next word without truly thinking (McCoy et al., 2023).
From GUI to CUI: Why Evaluation Must Catch Up With the Interface Revolution
For decades, human-computer interaction was built on a comfortable assumption: people click, systems respond and the boundaries are clear. A button is a button, a menu is a menu. When things go wrong, you can often spot the missing step, the frozen cursor, the bad modal window.
How Do LLMs Reason? The Power of Thinking Longer and Test-time Scaling
For years, the industry has focused on making models bigger. This training time scaling (Kaplan et al., 2020) made models highly fluent, similar to a student who memorised the entire textbook. But fluency is not the same as reasoning. Large language models (LLMs) still struggle with complex logic, maths or coding tasks because they respond too quickly, predicting the next word without truly thinking (McCoy et al., 2023).
AI is Reshaping Regulatory Thinking
Trigger Warning/Disclaimer: This blog post mentions suicide. If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts or a crisis, please reach out immediately for help. A hotline in your country can be found on befrienders.org.
AI is reshaping not only our social practices but also the foundations of regulatory thinking. The transformative power of AI has compelled regulators to adopt a regulatory learning process, shifting from static legal doctrine to an adaptive, learning-driven regulatory approach (Hadfield & Clark, 2023). This shift is driven by both the emergent challenges of AI and the motivation to devise laws that enable AI innovation while protecting against its potential risks (Smuha, 2019). As a result, we present some doctrine examples to argue that AI does not merely challenge existing legal rules but disrupts the obsolete assumptions underlying traditional regulations, making regulatory learning a structural necessity rather than a policy choice.
LLMs as Tools in the Continuum of Human Cultural Evolution
Human culture is unique in how knowledge is transmitted and preserved, as distinguished from all other non-human cultures. This progress is referred to as the “ratchet effect” (Tomasello et al., 1993): a mechanism that faithfully conserves existing knowledge and skills within exchanges while also contributing new innovations. This dual process ensures the accumulation of cultural knowledge.
Renewing Craftsmanship in the Age of AI: Toward a Design Pedagogy of Care
Craftsmanship has long held a central place in art and design history. While often associated with form and aesthetics, its deeper emphasis lies in dedication, tradition and quality-in the care and attention given to the process of making. As technology accelerates and productivity becomes a dominant cultural value, design movements have emerged to resist this pace. Slow technology, for instance, encourages mindful engagement with products (Hallnäs & Redström, 2002), while speculative design and design fiction invite audiences to imagine alternative futures (Dunne & Raby, 2013; Bleecker, 2009). Yet both still centre primarily on the perception of the audience and on how the work is received or interpreted. Craftsmanship, by contrast, turns inward: it concerns the mode of practice, the values and sensibilities embodied by the maker in the act of creation. It asks not what is made, but how it is made, and how that process shapes the maker themselves. In the context of design education, this focus on practice makes craftsmanship particularly resonant: it cultivates an attitude, a rhythm and a sense of responsibility toward making that extends beyond outcomes.
Navigating Truth and Accountability in the Age of AI Information
Journalism, as one of the main driving forces behind information flows in modern societies, has traditionally promoted itself as the medium of truth. The credibility of news institutions and the legitimacy of journalism as a profession have long rested on their ability to produce, verify and disseminate information grounded in factual accuracy and editorial integrity. Yet, in the era of artificial intelligence, these epistemic foundations are being profoundly challenged: generative AI does not only replicate or automate journalistic processes, but also potentially transforms them. The generative potential of AI introduces a new layer of uncertainty to news production, as tools that are neither human nor conscious are now producing texts with the marks of human authorship, originality and even moral voice.
Tying the Knots of Trust: Understanding the Evolving Sociotechnical Ecosystem of Trust in LLMs
When we interact with a chatbot, ask a digital assistant for advice or rely on LLMs to summarise a long document, we are doing something profoundly human: we are trusting. Trust is part of what makes cooperation possible between people, but increasingly, also between people and machines. In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), and particularly with the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs), trust has become a central issue.
Beyond Accuracy: Why “Being Right” Isn’t Enough for Human-Centred AI
Imagine the following two scenarios. A teacher asks an AI to review a student’s essay. Its feedback is accurate, the grammar is fixed and the facts are straight, yet the student still feels stuck. The student has no clue what to try next. A software team asks an AI to flag bugs. The model points to real issues, but the way it explains them leaves new engineers more confused than confident. In both cases, the tool passes the test and fails a person.
Accuracy matters, but it’s not the whole story. If we chase only the right answer, we ship systems that look strong in demos and lose people in real use.
Beyond the Hype: What Actually Makes AI Design Different
Just a few years ago, conversation flow design was at the heart of chatbot research (Cho et al., 2025). Designers developed detailed guidelines to structure dialogues, crafted messaging frameworks for seamless interactions, and carefully designed output messages to align with chatbot personas. Then as transformer-based large language models (LLMs) arrived, the rigid and predefined conversation structures that worked for rule-based systems couldn’t accommodate LLMs’ dynamic, context-aware response. Research priorities shifted from designing fixed dialogue trees to exploring prompt engineering and interaction patterns (Cho et al., 2025). The expertise built over years around conversation flow design was fundamental but it needed rapid reframing; designers had to rethink how to guide conversations without prescribing every turn, how to maintain coherence without rigid structures, and how to evaluate interactions that varied with each user (Subramonyam et al., 2024). This narrative about change isn’t just applicable to chatbots. It’s applicable to Generative AI’s (GenAI) unique temporal challenge and it raises a critical question for anyone designing with or for AI – are our design methods keeping up, or do we need new ones?