Beware of OpenAI's 'Grantwashing' on AI Harms

hubie writes:

Beware of OpenAI's 'Grantwashing' on AI Harms:

This month, OpenAI announced "up to $2 million" in funding for research studies on AI safety and well-being. At its surface, this may seem generous, but following in the footsteps of other tech giants facing scrutiny over their products' mental health impacts, it's nothing more than grantwashing.

This industry practice commits a pittance to research that is doomed to be ineffective due to information and resources that companies hold back. When grantwashing works, it compromises the search for answers. And that's an insult to anyone whose loved one's death involved chatbots.

OpenAI's pledge came a week after the company's lawyers argued that the company isn't to blame in the death of a California teenager who ChatGPT encouraged to commit suicide. In the company's attempt to disclaim responsibility in court, they even requested a list of invitees to the teen's memorial and video footage of the service and the people there. In the last year, OpenAI and other generative AI companies have been accused of causing numerous deaths and psychotic breaks by encouraging people into suicide, feeding delusions, and giving them risky instructions.

As scientists who study developmental psychology and AI, we agree that society urgently needs better science on AI and mental health. The company has recruited a group of genuinely credible scientists to give them closed-door advice on the issue, like so many other companies accused of causing harm. But OpenAI's funding announcement reveals how small a fig leaf they think will persuade a credulous public.

Look at the size of the grants. High quality public health research on mental health harms requires a sequence of studies, large sample sizes, access to clinical patients, and an ethics safety net that supports people at risk. The median research project grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health in 2024 was $642,918. In contrast, OpenAI is offering a measly $5,000 to $100,000 to researchers studying AI and mental health, one sixth of a typical NIMH grant at best.

Despite the good ideas Open AI suggests, the company is holding back the resource that would contribute most to science on those questions: records about their systems and how people use their products. OpenAI's researchers have purportedly developed ways to identify users who potentially face mental health distress. A well-designed data access program would accelerate the search for answers while preserving privacy and protecting vulnerable users. European regulators are still deciding if OpenAI will face data access requirements under the Digital Services Act, but OpenAI doesn't have to wait for Europe.

We have seen this playbook before from other companies. In 2019, Meta announced a series of fifty thousand dollar grants to six scientists studying Instagram, safety, and well being. Even as the company touted its commitment to science on user well-being, Meta's leaders were pressuring internal researchers to "amend their research to limit Meta's potential liability," according to a recent ruling in the D.C. Superior Court.

Read more of this story at SoylentNews.