The Impact of Generative Conversational Artificial Intelligence on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Community: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite recent significant strides toward acceptance, inclusion, and equality, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community still face alarming mental health disparities, being almost 3 times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. These unique psychological challenges are due to discrimination, stigmatization, and identity-related struggles and can potentially benefit from generative conversational artificial intelligence (AI). As the latest advancement in AI, conversational agents and chatbots can imitate human conversation and support mental health, fostering diversity and inclusivity, combating stigma, and countering discrimination. In contrast, if not properly designed, they can perpetuate exclusion and inequities. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the impact of generative conversational AI on the LGBTQ community. METHODS: This study was designed as a scoping review. Four electronic scholarly databases (Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via PubMed) and gray literature (Google Scholar) were consulted from inception without any language restrictions. Original studies focusing on the LGBTQ community or counselors working with this community exposed to chatbots and AI-enhanced internet-based platforms and exploring the feasibility, acceptance, or effectiveness of AI-enhanced tools were deemed eligible. The findings were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: Seven applications (HIVST-Chatbot, TelePrEP Navigator, Amanda Selfie, Crisis Contact Simulator, REALbot, Tough Talks, and Queer AI) were included and reviewed. The chatbots and internet-based assistants identified served various purposes: (1) to identify LGBTQ individuals at risk of suicide or contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections, (2) to provide resources to LGBTQ youth from underserved areas, (3) facilitate HIV status disclosure to sex partners, and (4) develop training role-play personas encompassing the diverse experiences and intersecting identities of LGBTQ youth to educate counselors. The use of generative conversational AI for the LGBTQ community is still in its early stages. Initial studies have found that deploying chatbots is feasible and well received, with high ratings for usability and user satisfaction. However, there is room for improvement in terms of the content provided and making conversations more engaging and interactive. Many of these studies used small sample sizes and short-term interventions measuring limited outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Generative conversational AI holds promise, but further development and formal evaluation are needed, including studies with larger samples, longer interventions, and randomized trials to compare different content, delivery methods, and dissemination platforms. In addition, a focus on engagement with behavioral objectives is essential to advance this field. The findings have broad practical implications, highlighting that AI's impact spans various aspects of people's lives. Assessing AI's impact on diverse communities and adopting diversity-aware and intersectional approaches can help shape AI's positive impact on society as a whole.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».