Alice Qian

Alice Qian, Ryland Shaw, Laura Dabbish et al.

As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection processes, but they overlook an important aspect of disclosing well-being risks to workers. In the absence of standard workflows or clear guidance, the consistent application of content warnings, consent flows, or other forms of well-being risk disclosure remains unclear. This study investigates how task designers approach risk disclosure in crowdsourced RAI tasks. Drawing on interviews with 23 task designers across academic and industry sectors, we examine how well-being risk is recognized, interpreted, and communicated in practice. Our findings highlight the need to support task designers in identifying and communicating risks not only to support crowdworker well-being but also to strengthen the ethical integrity and technical efficacy of AI development pipelines.

Ningjing Tang, Alice Qian, Qiaosi Wang et al.

Content Warning: This paper contains participant quotes and discussions related to mental health challenges, emotional distress, and suicidal ideation. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for mental health support, yet the model safeguards -- particularly refusals to engage with sensitive content -- remain poorly understood from the perspectives of users and mental health professionals (MHPs) and have been reported to cause real-world harms. This paper presents findings from a sequential mixed-methods study examining how LLM refusals are experienced and interpreted in mental health support interactions. Through surveys (N=53) and in-depth interviews (N=16) with individuals using LLMs for mental health support and MHPs, we reveal that refusals are not isolated, single-turn system behaviors but rather constitute dynamic, multi-phase experiences: pre-refusal expectation formation, refusal triggering and encounter, refusal message framing, resource referral provision, and post-refusal outcomes. We contribute a multi-phase framework for evaluating refusals beyond binary policy compliance accuracy and design recommendations for future refusal mechanisms. These findings suggest that understanding LLM refusals requires moving beyond single-turn interactions toward recognizing them as holistic experiences embedded within users' support-seeking trajectories and the broader LLM design pipeline.

Yee-Yin Choong, Kristen Greene, Alice Qian et al.

AI measurement science has a wide variety of methodologies and measurements for comparing AI systems, resulting in what often appear to be "apples-to-oranges" comparisons across AI evaluations. To move toward "apples-to-apples" comparisons in real-world AI evaluations, this work advocates for methodological transparency in evaluation scenarios, operational grounding, and human-centered design (HCD) principles. We propose a repeatable process for transforming high-level use cases to detailed scenarios by eliciting use cases from subject matter experts (SMEs) via a structured AI Use Case Worksheet with six key elements: use case, sector, user (direct and indirect), intended outcomes, expected impacts (positive and negative), and KPIs and metrics. We demonstrate utility of the worksheet and process in the U.S. financial services sector. This paper reports on example high-level AI use cases identified by financial services sector SMEs: cyber defense enablement, developer productivity, financial crime aggregation, suspicious activity report (SAR) filing, credit memo generation, and internal call center support. These AI use cases provided are illustrative of the process and not exhaustive. Central to our work is a three-stage expansion pipeline combining LLM prompting with human reviews to generate 107 scenarios from those use cases elicited from SMEs. This process integrates iterative human reviews at every juncture to ensure operational grounding: for scenario titles and descriptions; for core scenario elements like users, benefits and risks, and metrics; and for scenario narratives and evaluation objectives. Human checkpoints ensure scenarios remain reflective of real-world usage and human needs. We describe a validation rubric to assess scenario quality. By defining key scenario components, this work supports a more consistent and meaningful paradigm for human-centered AI evaluations.

Alice Qian, Ziqi Yang, Ryland Shaw et al.

Responsible AI (RAI) content work, such as annotation, moderation, or red teaming for AI safety, often exposes crowd workers to potentially harmful content. While prior work has underscored the importance of communicating well-being risk to employed content moderators, designing effective disclosure mechanisms for crowd workers while balancing worker protection with the needs of task designers and platforms remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, we conducted individual co-design sessions with 15 task designers, 11 crowdworkers, and 3 platform representatives. We investigated task designer preferences for support in disclosing tasks, worker preferences for receiving risk disclosure warnings, and how platform representatives envision their role in shaping risk disclosure practices. We identify design tensions and map the sociotechnical tradeoffs that shape disclosure practices. We contribute design recommendations and feature concepts for risk disclosure mechanisms in the context of RAI content work.