Ranjit Singh

Upol Ehsan, Ranjit Singh, Jacob Metcalf et al. · gatech

When algorithmic harms emerge, a reasonable response is to stop using the algorithm to resolve concerns related to fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE). However, just because an algorithm is removed does not imply its FATE-related issues cease to exist. In this paper, we introduce the notion of the "algorithmic imprint" to illustrate how merely removing an algorithm does not necessarily undo or mitigate its consequences. We operationalize this concept and its implications through the 2020 events surrounding the algorithmic grading of the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Advanced (A) Level exams, an internationally recognized UK-based high school diploma exam administered in over 160 countries. While the algorithmic standardization was ultimately removed due to global protests, we show how the removal failed to undo the algorithmic imprint on the sociotechnical infrastructures that shape students', teachers', and parents' lives. These events provide a rare chance to analyze the state of the world both with and without algorithmic mediation. We situate our case study in Bangladesh to illustrate how algorithms made in the Global North disproportionately impact stakeholders in the Global South. Chronicling more than a year-long community engagement consisting of 47 inter-views, we present the first coherent timeline of "what" happened in Bangladesh, contextualizing "why" and "how" they happened through the lenses of the algorithmic imprint and situated algorithmic fairness. Analyzing these events, we highlight how the contours of the algorithmic imprints can be inferred at the infrastructural, social, and individual levels. We share conceptual and practical implications around how imprint-awareness can (a) broaden the boundaries of how we think about algorithmic impact, (b) inform how we design algorithms, and (c) guide us in AI governance.

Briana Vecchione, Meryl Ye, Livia Garofalo et al.

General-purpose LLMs are increasingly functioning as mental health infrastructure due to gaps in care left by provider shortages, inadequate insurance coverage, social isolation, and stigma around formal help-seeking. This shift poses a distinct problem for AI ethics: systems neither designed nor governed as care technologies are being used as such, while their dominant design incentives optimize for engagement rather than user well-being. We present findings from a qualitative, longitudinal study with 18 US-based participants who use general-purpose LLMs for socioemotional support and participated in one or more of our study phases, including initial interviews, a four-week diary study, focus groups, and exit interviews. Participants turned to LLMs because other forms of support were unavailable, unaffordable, socially costly, or inadequate. As they continued to use these systems, design features such as anthropomorphic cues, default validation, persistent responsiveness, and weak disengagement mechanisms shaped their ongoing reliance. Participants described meaningful support alongside dependency, epistemic distortion through one-sided validation, privacy expectations without corresponding legal protection, and continued use despite awareness of these risks. We argue these dynamics reflect a structurally unfair tradeoff: users accept risks because support is otherwise absent, while available systems are optimized to deepen engagement and lack care-based accountability. The paper makes three contributions: it traces the arc through which LLMs become care infrastructure and identifies distinct ethical tensions at each stage, shifts analysis from turn-based exchanges to longitudinal trajectories of use, and argues that accountability belongs at the design and incentive conditions through which these systems become care infrastructure rather than at the output or crisis-response layer.