Small-world Networks of Agents Brainstorm AI Risks to Support Ideation
cs.HC, cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-09-21
Updated: 2026-09-21
Comments: 19 pages, 5 figures
Project page: https://josh-ashkinaze.github.io/plurals
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: The ideation phase of participatory AI risk assessment often starts with a blank slate or a limited list of predefined risks, making it difficult to surface indirect or systemic harms.
Terminology
Abstract
The ideation phase of participatory AI risk assessment often starts with a blank slate or a limited list of predefined risks, making it difficult to surface indirect or systemic harms. To address this limitation, we propose a three-stage ideation support tool. The tool complements participatory AI, rather than replacing it, and helps focus later engagement with affected communities. First, it dynamically discovers stakeholders depending on the given AI use and recursively expanding outward, allowing overlooked or indirect stakeholders to emerge. Second, it simulates these stakeholders with LLMs, connecting them into a network of a given topology, and having them ideate about risks. Third, it prioritizes risks using network centrality measures. In an initial evaluation, we found that betweenness centrality run through agents connected in a small-world network works best as it elevates risks raised by stakeholders who bridge disconnected groups, surfacing novel, systemic harms that traditional methods often miss. On an AI chatbot companion use case, this approach increased the novelty of the identified risks by approximately 1.1 points over single LLM brainstorming, and by 0.5 points over agentic LLM brainstorming, measured on a normalized five-point Likert scale, without reducing the plausibility or severity of the identified risks. To test whether our framework helps a human-led ideation session using the Futures Wheel approach, we divided 11 teams of non-western young chatbot users into two types: control (team) and treatment (team) in a participatory AI risk assessment. The control teams started from a list of risks generated by the 45 AI practitioners in the initial evaluation; the treatment teams started from a list generated by our framework. The treatment teams identified more risks overall, and more systemic, human-computer interaction, and environmental risks.
Sources
- AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harms
- Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned
- Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs
- A Taxonomy of Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI
Related papers
- EduGage: A Multimodal Dataset and Benchmark for Sensor-Based Momentary Assessment of Engagement in Self-Guided Video Learning
- EvoDesign: Agentic Editable Diagram Creation via Design Expertise Evolution
- HAGI++: Head-Assisted Gaze Imputation and Generation
- Linking Behaviour and Perception to Evaluate Meaningful Human Control over Partially Automated Driving
- Review of Explainable Decision Support and Adaptive Human-Machine Interfaces for Automation Transparency in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
- Towards Cognitive Process-Aware Proactive Writing Support