Although language model–based chat systems are increasingly used in daily life, most Americans remain non-adopters of chat-based LLMs — as of June 2025, 66% had never used ChatGPT. At the same time, LLM development and evaluation rely mainly on data from adopters (e.g., logs, preference data), focusing on the needs and tasks for a limited demographic group of adopters in terms of geographic location, education, and gender. In this position paper, we argue that incorporating non-adopter perspectives is essential for developing broadly useful and capable LLMs. We contend that relying on methods that focus primarily on adopters will risk missing a range of tasks and needs prioritized by non-adopters, entrenching inequalities in who benefits from LLMs, and creating oversights in model development and evaluation. To illustrate this claim, we conduct case studies with non-adopters and show: how non-adopter needs diverge from those of current users, how non-adopter needs point us towards novel reasoning tasks, and how to systematically integrate non-adopter needs via human-centered methods.

The impact of AI models on marginalized communities has traditionally been measured by identifying performance differences between specified demographic subgroups. Though this approach aims to center vulnerable groups, it risks obscuring patterns of harm faced by intersectional subgroups or shared across multiple groups. To address this, we draw on theories of marginalization from disability studies and related disciplines, which state that people farther from the norm face greater adversity, to consider the “margins” in the domain of toxicity detection. We operationalize the “margins” of a dataset by employing outlier detection to identify text about people with demographic attributes distant from the “norm”. We find that model performance is consistently worse for demographic outliers, with mean squared error (MSE) between outliers and non-outliers up to 70.4% worse across toxicity types. It is also worse for text outliers, with a MSE up to 68.4% higher for outliers than non-outliers. We also find text and demographic outliers to be particularly susceptible to errors in the classification of severe toxicity and identity attacks. Compared to analysis of disparities using traditional demographic breakdowns, we find that our outlier analysis frequently surfaces greater harms faced by a larger, more intersectional group, which suggests that outlier analysis is particularly beneficial for identifying harms against those groups.