• Applied Psychologist, Human-AI Interaction

• Doctoral Researcher (PhD candidate)

• Former NBC Reporter

• Creator, Human Readiness Framework™

• Chair, IEEE Organizational Readiness for Human-AI Interaction

• Advisor, Harvard AI for Human Flourishing Global Council

• Head, Oxford Human Flourishing with AI Collab Lab (2026)

• Collaborator, Oxford AI in Education Hub (AIEOU)

• MIT AI & Human Flourishing Benchmarks Collaborator

• UNESCO 3rd Global Forum participant

• Pulitzer Center AI Reporting

• The Athens Roundtable Collaborator

• AvaResearch, AI Action Summit, Scientific Advisor

• Dubai Future Forum 

• STEMM Scholar, Science for Development Institute

• University of Cambridge (Cognitive Psychology/Neuropsychology)

• APA, Human Factors (AI)

• Worked with Forbes, Stanford, NASA, Chopra Center

Mel Sellick

Founder, Future Human Lab

Applied psychologist, doctoral researcher, former NBC reporter. My career reflects a conviction: the most consequential questions about technology aren't technical. They're deeply human. As a reporter, I learned to translate complex concepts into bite-sized pieces for mainstream audiences. As a psychologist, I developed frameworks for how systems shape human capacity and self-understanding.  As a researcher collaborating with IEEE, UNESCO, Oxford, Harvard, and MIT, I work to ensure human flourishing (not efficiency) defines how we measure AI's success. I created the Human Readiness Framework to address a critical gap: everyone focuses on AI literacy and ethics, but no one systematically examined whether humans were psychologically, cognitively, and relationally prepared for these tools that have unleashed on society. The Framework now informs IEEE's first global standard for organizational readiness and shapes UNESCO's AI education policy. It's implemented by universities and frontier AI companies building conversational systems. It’s an iterative, living framework that will continue to grow and adapt as we humans must in a world where AI is now infrastructure.

I also consult with organizations grappling with integration while protecting its most valuable asset– humans; advise on AI system design, contribute to MIT's benchmarks for AI and human flourishing, lead Oxford’s Collab Lab on Human Flourishing, and asked to create Oxford's first emotional intelligence benchmark for AI.

From research and experience, I know: AI has fundamentally changed the relational fabric of society. A Microsoft study of 37.5 million conversations found the same AI plays two roles: work partner on desktop, personal confidant on mobile no matter what time of day. We practice patience and disagreement less because AI provides frictionless alternatives. Over 220 million AI companion app downloads, with therapy now ChatGPT's #1 use case. 

The problem isn't carelessness or even nefarious evil, although it’s an easy blame game. It’s the myth of the” reasonable user”. We assume deployment means readiness. That exposure equals capability. That  adaptation is automatic and ‘normal’. Yet, research reveals otherwise. 

Readiness, from my view, is psychological, cognitive, relational. It’s distributed unevenly across people and contexts. The same system supporting one person undermines another, depending on stress, loneliness, role, circumstances.

What concerns me most aren’t big, dramatic events. It's the gradual reshaping of who we are and who we become by using these tools regularly.

Regular AI reduces effortful thinking; confidence increases faster than understanding and people trust AI answers when they’re feeling uncertain. These changes are gradual, and they feel normal. That's why frameworks for readiness matter. And why they’re urgent.

We're seeing an "attachment economy" emerge (Dr. Zak Stein coined the phrase) , where systems exploit human bonding for profit. It’s not attention hacking (cognition), It’s attachment hacking (identity, belonging, selfhood). And the consequences are layered, impactful, and changing everything we know about belonging and relating in our society. 

This is why I build FHL publicly, so we can do this together and compare notes and keep one another encouraged. The stakes are too high for singular decision makers or thought leaders or academics to go it alone. Families need guidance. Organizations need frameworks. Researchers need dialogue. We all need to understand readiness isn't automatic, it must be cultivated.