AI agents can automate tasks by turning a single natural-language request into a multi-step process spanning tools, files, and applications. Users are often left to judge that process from fragmented execution information and the final output. To make the completed process easier to understand, validate, and reuse, we investigate post-task workflows: editable, graph-based representations of an agent's completed execution. We first analyzed 10,803 public workflow templates from n8n to characterize real-world automation practice, then developed Trace2Flow, a research probe that translates agent execution traces into interactive post-task workflows. In a study, participants (N = 20) reviewed agent executions with prompt or agent errors. We found that post-task workflows improved their understanding and error detection over a prompt-only condition, and that validation succeeded mainly when users cross-checked across multiple evidence sources. For follow-up tasks, adapting the workflow matched adapting the prior prompt in success, time, and difficulty, and was often preferred.
Ze-Kun Wu, Xin-Ru Wang, Rock Yuren Pang et al.· 0 citations
In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation. With courts become a recurring forum in which AI-related practices are scrutinized, it is important to empirically understand the AI litigation landscape to date. We address this gap through a systematic review of 559 U.S. federal court opinions in which AI plays a role in the parties'contentions, taxonomizing (1) common topics of dispute, (2) the AI technologies implicated, and (3) the parties involved, including common plaintiff and defendant types. We identify seven recurring dispute areas, six categories of AI technologies at the center of litigation, and four types of common litigants, alongside legal doctrines used by the litigants. A comparison of this taxonomy to the AI Incident Database revealed substantial gaps in coverage, definitions, and prevalence between documented and litigated harms, suggesting courts capture only part of the AI risk landscape. In addition, we found that court decisions primarily rely on pre-existing legal doctrines to manage AI rather than making new AI-specific laws, producing a form of"piecemeal"AI governance. As a result, federal court outcomes are shaped less by where AI has caused harms and more by which harms are cognizable under existing statutes, leading to certain AI harms remaining unresolved.
Julien Yu, Rock Yuren Pang, Jevan A. Hutson et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
