Beyond "I Can't Help With That": How Child Safety Experts Evaluate AI Chatbot Safety
Hannah Cha, Neha Shukla, Solon Barocas, Alexandra Chouldechova, Eugenia Kim, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
cs.CY, cs.AI, cs.HC
Submitted: 2026-08-08
Updated: 2026-08-11
Comments: Ninth AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES 2026)
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations.
Terminology
Abstract
Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.
Sources
- Lessons From Red Teaming 100 Generative AI Products
- ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMs
- OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models
- Understanding Parents' Desires in Moderating Children's Interactions with GenAI Chatbots through LLM-Generated Probes
- How AI Companionship Develops: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study
- Expert Evaluation and the Limits of Human Feedback in Mental Health AI Safety Testing
- Safe-Child-LLM: A Developmental Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Safety in Child-LLM Interactions
- MinorBench: A hand-built benchmark for content-based risks for children
- Towards Real-World Validity in Generative AI Benchmarks: Understanding and Designing Domain-Centered Evaluations for Journalism Practitioners
- PluriHarms: Benchmarking the Full Spectrum of Human Judgments on AI Harm
- Beyond Single-Turn: A Survey on Multi-Turn Interactions with Large Language Models
- HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal
- A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
- The Inadequacy of Offline LLM Evaluations: A Need to Account for Personalization in Model Behavior
- Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems
- SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal
- SproutBench: A Benchmark for Safe and Ethical Large Language Models for Youth
- Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Data
Related papers
- GenAIT: Development and Validation of an Objective Generative AI Literacy Test for High School Students
- Reasoning Enhances Robustness to Prompt Injection in LLM-Based Consensus
- Generative AI Purpose-built for Social and Mental Health: A Real-World Pilot
- Comparative analysis of privacy-preserving open-source LLMs regarding extraction of diagnostic information from clinical CMR imaging reports
- PersonaMem-v3: Toward Omni-Platform Personal Intelligence for Holistic User Understanding, Recommendation, and Agentic Tasks
- What is an intelligent system?