//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile






Loading...
(2/6) We ran two pre-registered studies (N=470, 604) where participants watched short videos framing LLMs as machines, tools, or companions. In both, participants rated their beliefs about LLM mental capacities. In the second, they also used LLM outputs to answer factual questions.
(1/6) People talk about AI systems (including large language models, or LLMs) in different ways. We first ask how this might shape what people believe about the technology–primarily, what mental capacities (e.g., the ability to have intentions) people attribute to LLMs.
How should we talk about LLMs? Does it matter if we frame them as a machines šŸ“ , tools āš’ļø, or companions šŸ‘„? Our #CHI2026 paper shows that these framings can alter what people believe about LLMs and how they use them. See 🧵! Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2510.18039 Presentation: Friday 11:15am in P1-128