arXiv subjects

William Agnew

Publications and source records attributed to William Agnew.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

DelusionEval: Measuring Delusion-Linked Behaviors in AI Chatbots

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Challenges to Grassroots Organization Engagement with AI Policy

Public policies are being developed around the world to address privacy, economic, intellectual property, energy, and other risks that AI technologies pose. Involvement from the general public is essential to governance as an accountability and alignment mechanism. However, participating in and impacting policymaking can be challenging for sections of the public that lack extensive networks, lobbying capabilities, and other forms of power. This challenge is especially acute for marginalized communities. In this paper, we present a case study of our organization's efforts to bring participatory design (PD) principles to AI policymaking in the US. We describe our engagements with several US policy bodies, and our participatory development of AI policy for queer people. We highlight challenges with PD practice with marginalized communities, and offer suggestions to alleviate them. We conclude with actionable recommendations for policymakers and other organizers working in marginalized communities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Making a Name for Myself: On Academic Naming Policies and their Impact

In academic publishing, names connect scholars to their work. When scholars change their names, including for marriage, academic recognition, or gender transition, they may lose credit for past publications. However, despite significant impacts on citation accuracy and researcher well-being, no existing studies examine how naming policies in computer science serve researchers who change their names. We use a mixed-methods approach combining surveys, interviews, and large-scale citation analysis of papers from eight major computer science venues from 2019-2025. We document the multi-year advocacy effort that established the first name change policies, identify implementation barriers including incomplete publisher updates and months-long processing delays. Researchers continue being cited with misparsed and incorrect names despite publisher updates. When these citation errors happen, interviewees report significant mental health impacts, including stress, anxiety, and safety risks. Empirically, we find that venues with accessible and visible name change policies have significantly fewer citation errors compared to inaccessible policies (899 vs. 996 errors per 1,000 papers). Our annotation analysis shows that deadnaming of transgender researchers in citations decreased by 92% from 2019 to 2024. Our findings demonstrate the importance of inclusive publishing policies, for which name change policy advocacy led by trans researchers has been a significant driver. We recommend that venues adopt proactive visible name change policies, support queer advocacy groups, and improve publication infrastructure to build an inclusive publishing landscape. The accompanied toolkit to check errors in bibliographic latex file is available here https://github.com/pranav-ust/cite-updater.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

AuraMask: An Extensible Pipeline for Developing Aesthetic Anti-Facial Recognition Image Filters

Anti-facial recognition (AFR) image filters alter images in ways that are subtle to people but blinding to computer vision. Yet, despite widespread interest in these technologies to subvert surveillance, users rarely use them in practice -- because the ``subtle'' alterations are visible enough to conflict with users' self-presentation goals. To address this challenge, we propose AuraMask: a novel approach to creating AFR filters that are both adversarially effective and aesthetically acceptable. Using AuraMask, we produce 40 ``aesthetic'' filters that emulate popular ``one-click'' Instagram image filters. We show that AuraMask filters meet or exceed the adversarial effectiveness of prior methods against open-source facial recognition models. Moreover, in a controlled online user study ($N=630$) we confirm these filters achieve significantly higher user acceptance than prior methods. Lastly, we provide our AFR pipeline to the community for accelerated research in adversarially effective and aesthetically acceptable protections.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Big AI's Regulatory Capture: Mapping Industry Interference and Government Complicity

Over the past decade, the AI industry has come to exert an unprecedented economic, political and societal power and influence. It is therefore critical that we comprehend the extent and depth of pervasive and multifaceted capture of AI regulation by corporate actors in order to contend and challenge it. In this paper, we first develop a taxonomy of mechanisms enabling capture to provide a comprehensive understanding of the problem. Grounded in design science research (DSR) methodologies and extensive scoping review of existing literature and media reports, our taxonomy of capture consists of 27 mechanisms across five categories. We then develop an annotation template incorporating our taxonomy, and manually annotate and analyse 100 news articles. The purpose behind this analysis is twofold: validate our taxonomy and provide a novel quantification of capture mechanisms and dominant narratives. Our analysis identifies 249 instances of capture mechanisms, often co-occurring with narratives that rationalise such capture. We find that the most recurring categories of mechanisms are Discourse & Epistemic Influence, concerning narrative framing, and Elusion of law, related to violations and contentious interpretations of antitrust, privacy, copyright and labour laws. We further find that Regulation stifles innovation, Red tape and National Interest are the most frequently invoked narratives used to rationalise capture. We emphasize the extent and breadth of regulatory capture by coalescing forces -- Big AI and governments -- as something policy makers and the public ought to treat as an emergency. Finally, we put forward key lessons learned from other industries along with transferable tactics for uncovering, resisting and challenging Big AI capture as well as in envisioning counter narratives.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Dynamics of Delusion: Modeling Bidirectional False Belief Amplification in Human-Chatbot Dialogue

There is growing concern that AI chatbots might fuel delusional beliefs in users. Some have suggested that humans and chatbots mutually reinforce false beliefs over time, but quantitative evidence is lacking. Using a unique dataset of chat logs from individuals who exhibited delusional thinking, we developed a latent state model that captures accumulating and decaying influences between humans and chatbots. We find that a bidirectional influence model substantially outperforms a unidirectional alternative where humans are the primary driver of delusion. We find that humans exert strong but short-lived influence on chatbots, whereas chatbots exert longer-lasting influence on humans. Moreover, chatbots exert strong, stable self-influence over their own future outputs that tends to perpetuate delusions over long stretches of conversation. In fact, this chatbot self-influence constituted the dominant pathway when considering accumulated influence over time. Overall, these results indicate that humans tend to drive sharp, immediate increases in delusion, whereas chatbots sustain and propagate these effects over longer timescales. Together, these findings provide the first quantitative evidence that human-chatbot interactions can form feedback loops of delusion, decomposable into distinct pathways with dissociable temporal dynamics. By doing so, they can inform the development of safer AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logs

As large language models (LLMs) have proliferated, disturbing anecdotal reports of negative psychological effects, such as delusions, self-harm, and ``AI psychosis,'' have emerged in global media and legal discourse. However, it remains unclear how users and chatbots interact over the course of lengthy delusional ``spirals,'' limiting our ability to understand and mitigate the harm. In our work, we analyze logs of conversations with LLM chatbots from 19 users who report having experienced psychological harms from chatbot use. Many of our participants come from a support group for such chatbot users. We also include chat logs from participants covered by media outlets in widely-distributed stories about chatbot-reinforced delusions. In contrast to prior work that speculates on potential AI harms to mental health, to our knowledge we present the first in-depth study of such high-profile and veridically harmful cases. We develop an inventory of 28 codes and apply it to the $391,562$ messages in the logs. Codes include whether a user demonstrates delusional thinking (15.5% of user messages), a user expresses suicidal thoughts (69 validated user messages), or a chatbot misrepresents itself as sentient (21.2% of chatbot messages). We analyze the co-occurrence of message codes. We find, for example, that messages that declare romantic interest and messages where the chatbot describes itself as sentient occur much more often in longer conversations, suggesting that these topics could promote or result from user over-engagement and that safeguards in these areas may degrade in multi-turn settings. We conclude with concrete recommendations for how policymakers, LLM chatbot developers, and users can use our inventory and conversation analysis tool to understand and mitigate harm from LLM chatbots. Warning: This paper discusses self-harm, trauma, and violence.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

How Professional Visual Artists are Negotiating Generative AI in the Workplace

Generative AI has been heavily critiqued by artists in both popular media and HCI scholarship. However, more work is needed to understand the impacts of generative AI on professional artists' workplaces and careers. In this paper, we conduct a survey of 378 verified professional visual artists about how generative AI has impacted their careers and workplaces. We find (1) most visual artists are strongly opposed to using generative AI (text or visual) and negotiate their inclusion in the workplace through a variety of refusal strategies (2) there exist a range of factors in artists environments shaping their use of generative AI, including pressure from clients, bosses, and peers and (3) visual artists report overwhelmingly negative impacts of generative AI on their workplaces, leading to added stress and reduced job opportunities. In light of these findings, we encourage HCI researchers to contend more deeply with artists' desires not to use generative AI in the workplace.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Slurry-as-a-Service: A Modest Proposal on Scalable Pluralistic Alignment for Nutrient Optimization

Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a promising approach for ensuring that large language models (LLMs) faithfully represent the diversity, nuance, and conflict inherent in human values. In this work, we study a high-stakes deployment context - mulching - where automated systems transform selected individuals into nutrient-rich slurry for the dual purposes of food security and aesthetic population management. Building on recent pluralistic alignment frameworks, we introduce ValueMulch, a reproducible training, deployment, and certification pipeline for aligning mulching models (MMs) to a wide range of community norms. Through a real-world testbed spanning 32 communities, we show that ValueMulch improves distributional agreement with community mulching preferences relative to frontier baselines. We conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, and implications for researchers seeking to align systems to the full spectrum of human values - especially when those values are inconsistent, commercially inconvenient, or nutritionally underutilized. Author's note: This piece builds on prior existing work Keyes et al in 2019 that satirized cannibalism as a parody for approaches that imbue ethics into problematic technology. We bring those ideas to today's era with the proliferation of large language models in everyday lives, as a critique of current AI pluralistic alignment literature. Our work does not intend to argue that all alignment practices are evil, but rather that if framing value design as a technical problem enables technology systems to enact harms, then perhaps this framing is not enough.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Queer NLP: A Critical Survey on Literature Gaps, Biases and Trends

Natural language processing (NLP) technologies are rapidly reshaping how language is created, processed, and interpreted by humans. With current and potential applications in hiring, law, healthcare, and other areas that impact people's lives, understanding and mitigating harms towards marginalized groups is critical. In this survey, we examine NLP research papers that explicitly address the relationship between LGBTQIA+ communities and NLP technologies. We systematically review all such papers published in the ACL Anthology up until February 2026 (n=122), to answer the following research questions: (1) What are current research trends? (2) What gaps exist in terms of topics and methods? (3) What areas are open for future work? We find that while the number of papers on queer NLP has grown within the last few years, most papers take a reactive rather than a proactive approach, focusing on shortcomings of existing systems rather than creating new solutions. Our survey uncovers many opportunities for future work, especially regarding stakeholder involvement, intersectionality, interdisciplinarity, and languages other than English. We also offer an outlook from a queer studies perspective, highlighting understudied topics and blind spots in the harms addressed in NLP papers. Beyond being a roadmap of what has been done, this survey is a call to action for work towards more just and inclusive NLP technologies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Algorithmic Gaze of Image Quality Assessment: An Audit and Trace Ethnography of the LAION-Aesthetics Predictor

Visual generative AI models are trained using a one-size-fits-all measure of aesthetic appeal. However, what is deemed "aesthetic" is inextricably linked to personal taste and cultural values, raising the question of whose taste is represented in visual generative AI models. In this work, we study an aesthetic evaluation model--LAION-Aesthetics Predictor (LAP)--that is widely used to curate datasets to train visual generative image models, like Stable Diffusion, and evaluate the quality of AI-generated images. To understand what LAP measures, we audited the model across three datasets. First, we examined the impact of aesthetic filtering on the LAION-Aesthetics Dataset (approximately 1.2B images), which was curated from LAION-5B using LAP. We find that the LAP disproportionally filters in images with captions mentioning women, while filtering out images with captions mentioning men or LGBTQ+ people. Then, we used LAP to score approximately 330k images across two art datasets, finding the model rates realistic images of landscapes, cityscapes, and portraits from western and Japanese artists most highly. In doing so, the algorithmic gaze of this aesthetic evaluation model reinforces the imperial and male gazes found within western art history. In order to understand where these biases may have originated, we performed a digital ethnography of public materials related to the creation of LAP. We find that the development of LAP reflects the biases we found in our audits, such as the aesthetic scores used to train LAP primarily coming from English-speaking photographers and western AI-enthusiasts. In response, we discuss how aesthetic evaluation can perpetuate representational harms and call on AI developers to shift away from prescriptive measures of "aesthetics" toward more pluralistic evaluation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

How Do Data Owners Say No? A Case Study of Data Consent Mechanisms in Web-Scraped Vision-Language AI Training Datasets

The internet has become the main source of data to train modern text-to-image or vision-language models, yet it is increasingly unclear whether web-scale data collection practices for training AI systems adequately respect data owners' wishes. Ignoring the owner's indication of consent around data usage not only raises ethical concerns but also has recently been elevated into lawsuits around copyright infringement cases. In this work, we aim to reveal information about data owners' consent to AI scraping and training, and study how it's expressed in DataComp, a popular dataset of 12.8 billion text-image pairs. We examine both the sample-level information, including the copyright notice, watermarking, and metadata, and the web-domain-level information, such as a site's Terms of Service (ToS) and Robots Exclusion Protocol. We estimate at least 122M of samples exhibit some indication of copyright notice in CommonPool, and find that 60\% of the samples in the top 50 domains come from websites with ToS that prohibit scraping. Furthermore, we estimate 9-13\% with 95\% confidence interval of samples from CommonPool to contain watermarks, where existing watermark detection methods fail to capture them in high fidelity. Our holistic methods and findings show that data owners rely on various channels to convey data consent, of which current AI data collection pipelines do not entirely respect. These findings highlight the limitations of the current dataset curation/release practice and the need for a unified data consent framework taking AI purposes into consideration.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Common Pool of Privacy Problems: Legal and Technical Lessons from a Large-Scale Web-Scraped Machine Learning Dataset

We investigate the contents of web-scraped data for training AI systems, at sizes where human dataset curators and compilers no longer manually annotate every sample. Building off of prior privacy concerns in machine learning models, we ask: What are the legal privacy implications of web-scraped machine learning datasets? In an empirical study of a popular training dataset, we find significant presence of personally identifiable information despite sanitization efforts. Our audit provides concrete evidence to support the concern that any large-scale web-scraped dataset may contain legally defined personal data. We use these findings of a real-world dataset to inform our legal analysis with respect to existing privacy and data protection laws. We surface various legal risks of current data curation practices that may propagate personal information to train downstream models. Based on our empirical and legal analyses, we argue for reorientation of current frameworks of "publicly available" information to meaningfully limit the development of AI built upon indiscriminate scraping of the internet.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Enduring Disparities in the Workplace: A Pilot Study in the AI Community

In efforts toward achieving responsible artificial intelligence (AI), fostering a culture of workplace transparency, diversity, and inclusion can breed innovation, trust, and employee contentment. In AI and Machine Learning (ML), such environments correlate with higher standards of responsible development. Without transparency, disparities, microaggressions and misconduct will remain unaddressed, undermining the very structural inequities responsible AI aims to mitigate. While prior work investigates workplace transparency and disparities in broad domains (e.g. science and technology, law) for specific demographic subgroups, it lacks in-depth and intersectional conclusions and a focus on the AI/ML community. To address this, we conducted a pilot survey of 1260 AI/ML professionals both in industry and academia across different axes, probing aspects such as belonging, performance, workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, accessibility, performance and compensation, microaggressions, misconduct, growth, and well-being. Results indicate enduring disparities in workplace experiences for underrepresented and/or marginalized subgroups. In particular, we highlight that accessibility remains an important challenge for a positive work environment and that disabled employees have a worse workplace experience than their non-disabled colleagues. We further surface disparities for intersectional groups and discuss how the implementation of DEI initiatives may differ from their perceived impact on the workplace. This study is a first step towards increasing transparency and informing AI/ML practitioners and organizations with empirical results. We aim to foster equitable decision-making in the design and evaluation of organizational policies and provide data that may empower professionals to make more informed choices of prospective workplaces.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers

Should a large language model (LLM) be used as a therapist? In this paper, we investigate the use of LLMs to *replace* mental health providers, a use case promoted in the tech startup and research space. We conduct a mapping review of therapy guides used by major medical institutions to identify crucial aspects of therapeutic relationships, such as the importance of a therapeutic alliance between therapist and client. We then assess the ability of LLMs to reproduce and adhere to these aspects of therapeutic relationships by conducting several experiments investigating the responses of current LLMs, such as `gpt-4o`. Contrary to best practices in the medical community, LLMs 1) express stigma toward those with mental health conditions and 2) respond inappropriately to certain common (and critical) conditions in naturalistic therapy settings -- e.g., LLMs encourage clients' delusional thinking, likely due to their sycophancy. This occurs even with larger and newer LLMs, indicating that current safety practices may not address these gaps. Furthermore, we note foundational and practical barriers to the adoption of LLMs as therapists, such as that a therapeutic alliance requires human characteristics (e.g., identity and stakes). For these reasons, we conclude that LLMs should not replace therapists, and we discuss alternative roles for LLMs in clinical therapy.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Cake that is Intelligence and Who Gets to Bake it: An AI Analogy and its Implications for Participation

In a widely popular analogy by Turing Award Laureate Yann LeCun, machine intelligence has been compared to cake - where unsupervised learning forms the base, supervised learning adds the icing, and reinforcement learning is the cherry on top. We expand this 'cake that is intelligence' analogy from a simple structural metaphor to the full life-cycle of AI systems, extending it to sourcing of ingredients (data), conception of recipes (instructions), the baking process (training), and the tasting and selling of the cake (evaluation and distribution). Leveraging our re-conceptualization, we describe each step's entailed social ramifications and how they are bounded by statistical assumptions within machine learning. Whereas these technical foundations and social impacts are deeply intertwined, they are often studied in isolation, creating barriers that restrict meaningful participation. Our re-conceptualization paves the way to bridge this gap by mapping where technical foundations interact with social outcomes, highlighting opportunities for cross-disciplinary dialogue. Finally, we conclude with actionable recommendations at each stage of the metaphorical AI cake's life-cycle, empowering prospective AI practitioners, users, and researchers, with increased awareness and ability to engage in broader AI discourse.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Sound Check: Auditing Audio Datasets

Generative audio models are rapidly advancing in both capabilities and public utilization -- several powerful generative audio models have readily available open weights, and some tech companies have released high quality generative audio products. Yet, while prior work has enumerated many ethical issues stemming from the data on which generative visual and textual models have been trained, we have little understanding of similar issues with generative audio datasets, including those related to bias, toxicity, and intellectual property. To bridge this gap, we conducted a literature review of hundreds of audio datasets and selected seven of the most prominent to audit in more detail. We found that these datasets are biased against women, contain toxic stereotypes about marginalized communities, and contain significant amounts of copyrighted work. To enable artists to see if they are in popular audio datasets and facilitate exploration of the contents of these datasets, we developed a web tool audio datasets exploration tool at https://audio-audit.vercel.app.

cs.SD↗

arXiv2024

Data Defenses Against Large Language Models

Large language models excel at performing inference over text to extract information, summarize information, or generate additional text. These inference capabilities are implicated in a variety of ethical harms spanning surveillance, labor displacement, and IP/copyright theft. While many policy, legal, and technical mitigations have been proposed to counteract these harms, these mitigations typically require cooperation from institutions that move slower than technical advances (i.e., governments) or that have few incentives to act to counteract these harms (i.e., the corporations that create and profit from these LLMs). In this paper, we define and build "data defenses" -- a novel strategy that directly empowers data owners to block LLMs from performing inference on their data. We create data defenses by developing a method to automatically generate adversarial prompt injections that, when added to input text, significantly reduce the ability of LLMs to accurately infer personally identifying information about the subject of the input text or to use copyrighted text in inference. We examine the ethics of enabling such direct resistance to LLM inference, and argue that making data defenses that resist and subvert LLMs enables the realization of important values such as data ownership, data sovereignty, and democratic control over AI systems. We verify that our data defenses are cheap and fast to generate, work on the latest commercial and open-source LLMs, resistance to countermeasures, and are robust to several different attack settings. Finally, we consider the security implications of LLM data defenses and outline several future research directions in this area. Our code is available at https://github.com/wagnew3/LLMDataDefenses and a tool for using our defenses to protect text against LLM inference is at https://wagnew3.github.io/LLM-Data-Defenses/.

cs.CL↗