The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Data
Abstract
Generative AI (GAI) is reshaping the way young users engage with technology. This study introduces a taxonomy of risks associated with youth-GAI interactions, derived from an analysis of 344 chat transcripts between youth and GAI chatbots, 30,305 Reddit discussions concerning youth engagement with these systems, and 153 documented AI-related incidents. We categorize risks into six overarching themes, identifying 84 specific risks, which we further align with four distinct interaction pathways. Our findings highlight emerging concerns, such as risks to mental wellbeing, behavioral and social development, and novel forms of toxicity, privacy breaches, and misuse/exploitation that are not fully addressed in existing frameworks on child online safety or AI risks. By systematically grounding our taxonomy in empirical data, this work offers a structured approach to aiding AI developers, educators, caregivers, and policymakers in comprehending and mitigating risks associated with youth-GAI interactions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In health and mental health contexts, generative AI sometimes provides inaccurate or unsafe advice, which is especially concerning because many teens follow chatbot guidance without critical evaluation [94, 146].”
From Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [146]
In the citing paper
“Additional harms include emotional dependency, social withdrawal, toxic or deceptive content, discrimination, and privacy risks, which often intensify with repeated use [94, 146].”
From Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [146]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
The opportunities and risks of large language models in mental health
Lawrence, H. R., Schneider, R. A., Rubin, S. B., Mataric, M. J., McDuff, D. J., & Bell, M. J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.14814 · cited 1×
“Mismatched perceptions of AI’s capability to provide mental health services can lead to harm when applied in domains such as counseling [26].”
Cited by
Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives
Namvarpour, M. (., Brofsky, B., Medina, J. Y., Akter, M., & Razi, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790597 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Huang, Y., & Wang, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2502.16383
- References
- 2
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2502.16383
- The paper
- Yu, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Huang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Data. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2502.16383
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
