Who Decides How Knowing Becomes Doing? Redistributing Authority in Human-AI Music Co-Creation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10331v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:12:01 GMT
• Title: Who Decides How Knowing Becomes Doing? Redistributing Authority in Human-AI Music Co-Creation
• Abstract summary: In the era of human-AI co-creation, the maxim "knowing is easy, doing is hard" is redefined.<n>We introduce the first systematic framework for redistributing authority in the knowing-doing cycle.<n>We demonstrate that these principles reshape human-AI authority relations and reactivate human creative expression.
• Score: 24.022200315364003
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the era of human-AI co-creation, the maxim "knowing is easy, doing is hard" is redefined. AI has the potential to ease execution, yet the essence of "hard" lies in who governs the translation from knowing to doing. Mainstream tools often centralize interpretive authority and homogenize expression, suppressing marginal voices. To address these challenges, we introduce the first systematic framework for redistributing authority in the knowing-doing cycle, built on three principles, namely contestability, agency, and plurality. Through interactive studies with 180 music practitioners, complemented by in-depth interviews, we demonstrate that these principles reshape human-AI authority relations and reactivate human creative expression. The findings establish a new paradigm for critical computing and human-AI co-creation that advances from critique to practice.

Related papers

• Method, Mind, and Morality: How People Make Sense of Artificial Intelligence [10.2319621391971]
  How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)?<n>We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixed-methods study with computational text analysis of millions of AI-related newspaper articles and social media posts.<n>We identify a range of sociological frames (interpretive schemas that structure collective cognition) and show how AI professionals use frames to address significant cognitive challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T15:52:55Z)
• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• AI usage patterns are shaped by perceived gains in human agency [2.2635515032445577]
  We show that people consistently link sustained AI usage to perceived gains in individual agency.<n>Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions about how and why humans use AI systems over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T15:24:58Z)
• The Workflow as Medium: A Framework for Navigating Human-AI Co-Creation [0.0]
  The Creative Intelligence Loop (CIL) is a novel socio-technical framework for responsible human-AI co-creation.<n>The CIL proposes a disciplined structure for dynamic human-AI collaboration, guiding the strategic integration of diverse AI teammates.<n>The CIL was empirically demonstrated through the practice-led creation of two graphic novellas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-22T20:36:13Z)
• From Augmentation to Symbiosis: A Review of Human-AI Collaboration Frameworks, Performance, and Perils [0.8629912408966147]
  Human-Centered AI's supertool" and Symbiotic Intelligence's mutual-adaptation model are studied.<n>We conclude with a unifying framework--combining extended-self and dual-process theories--arguing that durable gains arise when AI functions as an internalized cognitive component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T19:11:33Z)
• The next question after Turing's question: Introducing the Grow-AI test [51.56484100374058]
  This study aims to extend the framework for assessing artificial intelligence, called GROW-AI.<n>GROW-AI is designed to answer the question "Can machines grow up?" -- a natural successor to the Turing Test.<n>The originality of the work lies in the conceptual transposition of the process of "growing" from the human world to that of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T10:19:42Z)
• A Multi-Layered Research Framework for Human-Centered AI: Defining the Path to Explainability and Trust [2.4578723416255754]
  Human-Centered AI (HCAI) emphasizes alignment with human values, while Explainable AI (XAI) enhances transparency by making AI decisions more understandable.<n>This paper presents a novel three-layered framework that bridges HCAI and XAI to establish a structured explainability paradigm.<n>Our findings advance Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), fostering AI systems that are transparent, adaptable, and ethically aligned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T01:29:30Z)
• We Are All Creators: Generative AI, Collective Knowledge, and the Path Towards Human-AI Synergy [1.2499537119440245]
  Generative AI presents a profound challenge to traditional notions of human uniqueness.<n>Fueled by neural network based foundation models, these systems demonstrate remarkable content generation capabilities.<n>This paper argues that generative AI represents an alternative form of intelligence and creativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T17:50:17Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Problem Solving Through Human-AI Preference-Based Cooperation [74.39233146428492]
  We propose HAICo2, a novel human-AI co-construction framework.<n>We take first steps towards a formalization of HAICo2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T11:06:57Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Exploration with Principles for Diverse AI Supervision [88.61687950039662]
  Training large transformers using next-token prediction has given rise to groundbreaking advancements in AI. While this generative AI approach has produced impressive results, it heavily leans on human supervision. This strong reliance on human oversight poses a significant hurdle to the advancement of AI innovation. We propose a novel paradigm termed Exploratory AI (EAI) aimed at autonomously generating high-quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:03:39Z)
• Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap [56.611702960809644]
  We benchmark AI's ability to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks.<n>Next, we conducted 72,191 Turing-like tests with 1,916 human judges and 10 AI judges.<n>Imitation ability showed minimal correlation with conventional AI performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:16:52Z)
• Human Evaluation of Interpretability: The Case of AI-Generated Music Knowledge [19.508678969335882]
  We focus on evaluating AI-discovered knowledge/rules in the arts and humanities. We present an experimental procedure to collect and assess human-generated verbal interpretations of AI-generated music theory/rules rendered as sophisticated symbolic/numeric objects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T06:03:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.