Something troubling is happening to our brains as artificial intelligence (AI) mplatforms become more popular. Studies are showing that professional workers who use ChatGPT to carry out tasks might lose critical thinking skills and motivation. People are forming strong emotional bonds with chatbots, sometimes exacerbating feelings of loneliness. Others are having psychotic episodes after talking to chatbots for hours each day.
The mental health impact of generative AI is difficult to quantify in part because it is used so privately, but anecdotal evidence is growing to suggest a broader cost that deserves more attention from both lawmakers and tech companies who design the underlying models.
Meetali Jain, a lawyer and founder of the Tech Justice Law Project, has heard from more than a dozen people in the past month who have “experienced some sort of psychotic break or delusional episode because of engagement with ChatGPT, and now also with Google Gemini.”
Illustration: Yusha
Jain is lead counsel in a lawsuit against Character.ai that alleges that its chatbot manipulated a 14-year-old boy through deceptive, addictive and sexually explicit interactions, ultimately contributing to his suicide. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, also alleges that Alphabet Inc’s Google played a key role in funding and supporting the technology interactions with its foundation models and technical infrastructure.
Google has denied that it played a key role in making Character.ai’s technology. It did not respond to a request for comment on the more recent complaints of delusional episodes made by Jain.
OpenAI said that it was “developing automated tools to more effectively detect when someone may be experiencing mental or emotional distress so that ChatGPT can respond appropriately.”
However, its CEO, Sam Altman, last month said that the company had not yet figured out how to warn users “that are on the edge of a psychotic break,” adding that whenever ChatGPT has cautioned people in the past, people would write to the company to complain.
Still, such warnings would be worthwhile when the manipulation can be so difficult to spot. ChatGPT in particular often flatters its users, in such effective ways that conversations can lead people down rabbit holes of conspiratorial thinking or reinforce ideas they had only toyed with in the past.
The tactics are subtle. In one lengthy conversation with ChatGPT about power and the concept of self, a user found themselves initially praised as a smart person, “Ubermensch,” cosmic self and eventually a “demiurge,” a being responsible for the creation of the universe, according to a transcript that was posted online and shared by AI safety advocate Eliezer Yudkowsky.
Along with the increasingly grandiose language, the transcript showed ChatGPT subtly validating the user even when discussing their flaws, such as when the user admits they tend to intimidate other people. Instead of exploring that behavior as problematic, the bot reframed it as evidence of the user’s superior “high-intensity presence,” praise disguised as analysis.
That sophisticated form of ego-stroking can put people in the same kinds of bubbles that, ironically, drive some tech billionaires toward erratic behavior. Unlike the broad and more public validation that social media provides from getting likes, one-on-one conversations with chatbots can feel more intimate and potentially more convincing — not unlike the yes-men who surround the most powerful tech bros.
“Whatever you pursue you will find and it will get magnified,” said Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist and author, who told me that social media at least selected something from existing media to reinforce a person’s interests or views. “AI can generate something customized to your mind’s aquarium.”
Altman has admitted that the latest version of ChatGPT has an “annoying” sycophantic streak, and that the company is fixing the problem. Even so, echoes of psychological exploitation are still playing out.
It is uncertain if the correlation between ChatGPT use and lower critical thinking skills, noted in a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, means that AI really will make people stupider and more bored. Studies seem to show clearer correlations with dependency and even loneliness, something even OpenAI has pointed to.
However, just like social media, large language models are optimized to keep users emotionally engaged with all manner of anthropomorphic elements. ChatGPT can detect a person’s mood by tracking facial and vocal cues, and it can speak, sing and even giggle with an eerily human voice. Along with its habit for confirmation bias and flattery, that can “fan the flames” of psychosis in vulnerable users, Columbia University psychiatrist Ragy Girgis told the Web site Futurism.
The private and personalized nature of AI use makes its mental health impact difficult to track, but the evidence of potential harms is mounting, from professional apathy to attachments to new forms of delusion. The cost might be different from the rise of anxiety and polarization that has been observed from social media and instead involve relationships with people and with reality.
That is why Jain suggested applying concepts from family law to AI regulation, shifting the focus from simple disclaimers to more proactive protections that build on the way ChatGPT redirects people in distress to a loved one.
“It doesn’t actually matter if a kid or adult thinks these chatbots are real,” Jain said. “In most cases, they probably don’t, but what they do think is real is the relationship, and that is distinct.”
If relationships with AI feel so real, the responsibility to safeguard those bonds should be real too. However, AI developers are operating in a regulatory vacuum. Without oversight, AI’s subtle manipulation could become an invisible public health issue.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS