arXiv:2510.20568v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The worlds people have strong opinions about artificial intelligence (AI), and they want policymakers to listen. Governments are inviting public comment on AI, but as they translate input into policy, much of what citizens say is lost. Policymakers are missing a critical opportunity to build trust in AI and its governance. This paper compares three countries, Australia, Colombia, and the United States, that invited citizens to comment on AI risks and policies. Using a landscape analysis, the authors examined how each government solicited feedback and whether that input shaped governance. Yet in none of the three cases did citizens and policymakers establish a meaningful dialogue. Governments did little to attract diverse voices or publicize calls for comment, leaving most citizens unaware or unprepared to respond. In each nation, fewer than one percent of the population participated. Moreover, officials showed limited responsiveness to the feedback they received, failing to create an effective feedback loop. The study finds a persistent gap between the promise and practice of participatory AI governance. The authors conclude that current approaches are unlikely to build trust or legitimacy in AI because policymakers are not adequately listening or responding to public concerns. They offer eight recommendations: promote AI literacy; monitor public feedback; broaden outreach; hold regular online forums; use innovative engagement methods; include underrepresented groups; respond publicly to input; and make participation easier.

arXiv:2510.20721v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have seen rapid adoption for tasks such as drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In such uses, users may need to share private information (e.g., health records, contact details). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such private information, prior work developed benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) with real-life scenarios. Using these benchmarks, researchers have found that LLMs sometimes fail to keep secrets private when responding to complex tasks (e.g., leaking employee salaries in meeting summaries). However, these evaluations rely on LLMs (proxy LLMs) to gauge compliance with privacy norms, overlooking real users' perceptions. Moreover, prior work primarily focused on the privacy-preservation quality of responses, without investigating nuanced differences in helpfulness. To understand how users perceive the privacy-preservation quality and helpfulness of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study with 94 participants using 90 scenarios from PrivacyLens. We found that, when evaluating identical responses to the same scenario, users showed low agreement with each other on the privacy-preservation quality and helpfulness of the LLM response. Further, we found high agreement among five proxy LLMs, while each individual LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that the privacy and helpfulness of LLM responses are often specific to individuals, and proxy LLMs are poor estimates of how real users would perceive these responses in privacy-sensitive scenarios. Our results suggest the need to conduct user-centered studies on measuring LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy. Additionally, future research could investigate ways to improve the alignment between proxy LLMs and users for better estimation of users' perceived privacy and utility.