General-purpose LLMs are increasingly functioning as mental health infrastructure due to gaps in care left by provider shortages, inadequate insurance coverage, social isolation, and stigma around formal help-seeking. This shift poses a distinct problem for AI ethics: systems neither designed nor governed as care technologies are being used as such, while their dominant design incentives optimize for engagement rather than user well-being. We present findings from a qualitative, longitudinal study with 18 US-based participants who use general-purpose LLMs for socioemotional support and participated in one or more of our study phases, including initial interviews, a four-week diary study, focus groups, and exit interviews. Participants turned to LLMs because other forms of support were unavailable, unaffordable, socially costly, or inadequate. As they continued to use these systems, design features such as anthropomorphic cues, default validation, persistent responsiveness, and weak disengagement mechanisms shaped their ongoing reliance. Participants described meaningful support alongside dependency, epistemic distortion through one-sided validation, privacy expectations without corresponding legal protection, and continued use despite awareness of these risks. We argue these dynamics reflect a structurally unfair tradeoff: users accept risks because support is otherwise absent, while available systems are optimized to deepen engagement and lack care-based accountability. The paper makes three contributions: it traces the arc through which LLMs become care infrastructure and identifies distinct ethical tensions at each stage, shifts analysis from turn-based exchanges to longitudinal trajectories of use, and argues that accountability belongs at the design and incentive conditions through which these systems become care infrastructure rather than at the output or crisis-response layer.

翻译：暂无翻译