Alignment Plausibility: A New Standard for Assuring AI in Healthcare
Large language models (LLMs) have become significant providers of mental health support, yet they remain products of an attention economy whose operational and commercial targets favour sustained engagement over the friction that effective psychological support often requires. Developers' safety responses have been largely reactive, addressing the most visible and acute harms while subtler, longer-term patterns of risk (e.g., dependency, boundary erosion, the amplification of distorted beliefs)
Record details
Published: 8 July 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Safety & alignment · Jobs & economy · Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime
arXiv · 11 May 2026
Mechanistic Interpretability of LLM Jailbreaks via Internal Attribution Graphs
arXiv · 8 July 2026
X-FEMR: A Token-level Explainable Approach for Electronic Health Records Foundation Models using Transformer-based Models
arXiv · 7 July 2026
Interpretable polyp classification via end-to-end Concept Bottleneck Models with vision-language concept alignment
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 10 July 2026
Harrison.Rad 1.5 Technical Report: A radiology foundation model that can draft reports from images, priors and clinical context
arXiv · 7 July 2026
Retroactive Chain-of-Thought (RetroCoT): Forensic Reconstruction Prompts as a Safety Diagnostic Across Model Generations
arXiv · 6 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (8 July 2026), “Alignment Plausibility: A New Standard for Assuring AI in Healthcare,” evidence record 123, https://ethics.ai/record/123 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.