And it's Open Access! Read it here: link.springer.com/article/10.1... and thanks to the editors, reviewers, and my wonderful collaborators for making this such a fun and relatively painless process.

Moreover, both conventional impact assessments *and* human-AI research often ignore the larger regulatory, economic, and political landscape in which AI chatbots & users exist. Understanding context and working with impacted communities is crucial to understand both immediate & downstream effects.

However, while therapeutic conversations are governed by privacy laws, wellness chatbots are not. We call for regulation on both therapeutic and general-purpose chatbots that takes into account that people use chatbots for mental health guidance even when that is not their intended purpose.

The paper draws from participatory algorithmic impact assessments- focus groups with impacted users- to surface their concerns. Wellness/psychic chatbots can encourage users to share very personal information, and their recommendations may feel revelatory or even divine.

Tenenbaums BY FAR

Basically: US academia will drastically shrink. It will decrease in influence worldwide and domestically, and ideas from academia will be far less likely to enter mainstream. Knowledge production privatized, less accessible, less public.

Downstream effects: academic publishing devastated; fewer people with academic training means smaller audience for academic work (regardless of where it's published); culture of academia gets more insular; conferences get smaller

it searched for "quality" work not "qualitative" work - I rephrased my Q and didn't get great answers. ChatGPT says: Big Data & Society
Science, Technology & Human Values
AI & Society
Social Studies of Science
Catalyst
New Media & Society
Information, Communication & Society
(no surprises there)