The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The AI Gaze We Choose: Speculative Metaphors by Queer Youth
Abstract
Far from merely illustrating reality, Generative Artificial Intelligence applications can impose a gaze that structures how identity and power are perceived. This gaze exacerbates societal biases and limits representation. In this work, we explore how queer young adults conceptualize a normative gaze in GenAI and how they, conversely, imagine a queer gaze. Using a craft‑based speculative approach, we explored the metaphors participants created and presented their interpretations of the GenAI gaze’s embodiment, perception, and behavior. Our contribution is twofold: we show the potential of this approach to support the inclusion of a wider range of perspectives in early Human–AI design, and we offer the metaphors themselves and their contrast as tools that help surface considerations for designing more inclusive and just GenAI systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Zanardi et al. (2026), participants characterized the normative AI gaze as singular and reductive and set against it a queer gaze figured as a rainbow iris holding multiple realities as simultaneously valid.
“Participants characterized the normative AI gaze as singular and reductive and set against it a queer gaze figured as a rainbow iris holding multiple realities as simultaneously valid.”
From Artificial intelligence and immersive technologies for LGBTQ+ youth: a narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as Zanardi et al. (2026)
Zanardi et al. (2026) demonstrates that speculative, materially grounded workshops can surface design considerations at a stage where users are rarely consulted, and that queer young people articulate critiques of generative systems that technical fairness audits do not capture.
“The study contributes a method rather than an outcome measure: it demonstrates that speculative, materially grounded workshops can surface design considerations at a stage of development where users are rarely consulted, and that queer young people articulate critiques of generative systems that technical fairness audits do not capture.”
From Artificial intelligence and immersive technologies for LGBTQ+ youth: a narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as Zanardi et al. (2026)
Zanardi et al. (2026) applied a craft-based speculative method with queer young adults, asking participants to build physical metaphors for how generative AI perceives identity and how a queer gaze might perceive differently.
“Zanardi et al. (2026) applied a craft-based speculative method with queer young adults, asking participants to build physical metaphors, using clay, fabric, and found materials, for how generative AI perceives identity, and then for how a queer gaze might perceive differently.”
From Artificial intelligence and immersive technologies for LGBTQ+ youth: a narrative review (2026) · cites this paper as Zanardi et al. (2026)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- 10.1145/1978942.1979041 · DOI
- 10.1145/3613904.3642724 · DOI
- 10.1145/3715336.3735714 · DOI
- Johannes Bruder. 2024. AI as medium and message. In Queer Reflections on AI: Uncertain Intelligences. Taylor & Francis.
- Fiona Buchanan. 2015. Touching on Emotions: Using Clay Work in a Context of Relational Empowerment to Investigate Sensitive Issues. In Critical and Creative Research Methodologies in Social Work. Ashgate.
- Miruna-Valeria Craiut and Ioana Raluca Iancu. 2022. Is technology gender neutral? A systematic literature review on gender stereotypes attached to artificial intelligence. Human Technology 18 3 (2022) 297–315. · DOI
- Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2024. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT press.
- A Dunne and Hertzian Tales. 2005. Electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design. MIT Press, Cambridge.
- 10.1145/3537797.3537826 · DOI
- Maya Indira Ganesh and Emanuel Moss. 2022. Resistance and refusal to algorithmic harms: Varieties of ‘knowledge projects’. Media International Australia 183 1 (2022) 90–106. · DOI
- bell hooks. 1993. The oppositional gaze: Black female spectators. In Black American Cinema. Routledge, 288–302.
- Don Ihde. 2009. Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking university lectures. Suny Press Chapter Technoscience and Postphenomenology. · DOI
- Guy Julier. 2013. From design culture to design activism. Design and Culture 5 2 (2013) 215–236. · DOI
- Michael Klipphahn-Karge, Ann-Kathrin Koster, and Sara Morais dos Santos Bruss. 2024. Introduction. In Queer Reflections on AI: Uncertain Intelligences. Taylor & Francis.
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · DOI
- Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers. Interacting with Computers 23 5 (2011) 430–438. 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.002Feminism and HCI: New Perspectives. · DOI
- Laura Mulvey. 2013. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In Feminism and film theory. Routledge, 57–68.
- 10.1145/3411764.3445406 · DOI
- 10.4324/9780203442159 · DOI
- Jean-Paul Sartre. 2018. The Look. In Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press, 347–408. Translated by Sarah Richmond. Original work published in 1943.
- Morgan Klaus Scheuerman Katy Weathington Adrian Petterson Dylan Thomas Doyle Dipto Das Michael Ann DeVito and Jed R. Brubaker. 2025. Transphobia Is in the Eye of the Prompter: Trans-Centered Perspectives on Large Language Models. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 32 5 Article 52 (Oct. 2025) 42 pages. 10.1145/3743676 · DOI
- Nishant Shah. 2024. I spy, with my little AI. In Queer Reflections on AI: Uncertain Intelligences. Taylor & Francis.
- 10.1145/3290607.3311750 · DOI
- 10.1145/3715275.3732061 · DOI
- 10.1145/3613904.3642494 · DOI
- Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2017. Designing the morality of things: The ethics of behaviour-guiding technology. Designing in ethics 78 (2017). · DOI
- D. L. Weber M. Brereton and A. M. Kanstrup. 2023. Developing Visual Tangible Artefacts as an Inclusive Method for Exploring Digital Activities with Young People with Learning Disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 51 (2023) 250–259. 10.1111/bld.12505 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence and immersive technologies for LGBTQ+ youth: a narrative review
Shekarchi, R., Eleuteri, S., Saladino, V., Calaresi, D., Giordano, F., & Prunas, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.2002054
Metadata
- Authors
- Zanardi, I., Dedò, S., & Landoni, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2026-04-13
- Pages
- 1-6
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Funders
- SNSF (IZCOZ0_205424)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
