Leah Ajmani

Benjamin Kaveladze, Arka Ghosh, Leah Ajmani et al.

People experiencing mental health crises frequently turn to open-ended generative AI (GenAI) chatbots for support. However, rather than providing immediate assistance, some GenAI chatbots are designed to respond to crisis situations in ways that minimize their developers' liability, primarily through avoidance (e.g., refusing to engage beyond templated referrals to crisis hotlines). Withholding crisis support in these cases may harm users who have no viable alternatives and reduce their motivation to seek further help. At scale, this avoidant design could undermine population mental health. We propose empowerment-oriented design principles for AI crisis support, informed by community helper models. As an initial touchpoint in help-seeking, AI chatbots can act as a supportive bridge to de-escalate crises and connect users to more reliable care. Coordination between AI developers and regulators can enable a better balance of risk mitigation and user empowerment in AI crisis support.

Leah Hope Ajmani, Arka Ghosh, Benjamin Kaveladze et al.

Online, people often recount their experiences turning to conversational AI agents (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot) for mental health support -- going so far as to replace their therapists. These anecdotes suggest that AI agents have great potential to offer accessible mental health support. However, it's unclear how to meet this potential in extreme mental health crisis use cases. In this work, we explore the first-person experience of turning to a conversational AI agent in a mental health crisis. From a testimonial survey (n = 53) of lived experiences, we find that people use AI agents to fill the in-between spaces of human support; they turn to AI due to lack of access to mental health professionals or fears of burdening others. At the same time, our interviews with mental health experts (n = 16) suggest that human-human connection is an essential positive action when managing a mental health crisis. Using the stages of change model, our results suggest that a responsible AI crisis intervention is one that increases the user's preparedness to take a positive action while de-escalating any intended negative action. We discuss the implications of designing conversational AI agents as bridges towards human-human connection rather than ends in themselves.

Leah Hope Ajmani, Nuredin Ali Abdelkadir, Stevie Chancellor

As AI technologies become more human-facing, there have been numerous calls to adapt participatory approaches to AI development -- spurring the idea of participatory AI. However, these calls often focus only on primary stakeholders, such as end-users, and not secondary stakeholders. This paper seeks to translate the ideals of participatory AI to a broader population of secondary AI stakeholders through semi-structured interviews. We theorize that meaningful participation involves three participatory ideals: (1) informedness, (2) consent, and (3) agency. We also explore how secondary stakeholders realize these ideals by traversing a complicated problem space. Like walking up the rungs of a ladder, these ideals build on one another. We introduce three stakeholder archetypes: the reluctant data contributor, the unsupported activist, and the well-intentioned practitioner, who must navigate systemic barriers to achieving agentic AI relationships. We envision an AI future where secondary stakeholders are able to meaningfully participate with the AI systems they influence and are influenced by.

Yiwei Wu, Leah Ajmani, Shayne Longpre et al.

As new machine learning methods demand larger training datasets, researchers and developers face significant challenges in dataset management. Although ethics reviews, documentation, and checklists have been established, it remains uncertain whether consistent dataset management practices exist across the community. This lack of a comprehensive overview hinders our ability to diagnose and address fundamental tensions and ethical issues related to managing large datasets. We present a systematic review of datasets published at the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks track, focusing on four key aspects: provenance, distribution, ethical disclosure, and licensing. Our findings reveal that dataset provenance is often unclear due to ambiguous filtering and curation processes. Additionally, a variety of sites are used for dataset hosting, but only a few offer structured metadata and version control. These inconsistencies underscore the urgent need for standardized data infrastructures for the publication and management of datasets.