“Artificial intelligence is often framed as a disruptive force, but in the realm of mental health it is increasingly becoming a quiet ally. From AI-powered chatbots that provide immediate emotional support to tools that help clinicians detect early signs of anxiety or depression, technology is expanding access to care in ways previously unimaginable. Rather than replacing human connection, AI is enhancing it — offering personalized, stigma-free assistance that meets people where they are, when they need it most and helping to close long-standing gaps in mental health support.”
The previous paragraph is what ChatGPT told me when I asked for “an opening paragraph of an article about how AI is good for mental health.”
The truth is, at least four individuals have committed suicide with the assistance ChatGPT just this year. Joshua Enneking, Amaurie Lacey, Adam Raine and Zane Shamblin were all assisted by ChatGPT in their suicides, and none of them were above the age of 26.
On the topic of AI, the American Psychological Association says “most of these technologies are not designed or intended to provide clinical feedback or treatment, may lack scientific validation and oversight, often do not include adequate safety protocols and have not received regulatory approval.”
That being said, it seems almost insidious ChatGPT would be willing to make a statement on the positive benefit of AI as mental health support. And, well, it is.
Washington Post tech journalist Gerrit de Vynck got hold of screenshots of the court filings ChatGPT parent company OpenAI had filed in rebuttal to a lawsuit headed by the Raine family. In these filings, one rebuttal provided by OpenAI was “the [terms of use] provides that ChatGPT users must comply with OpenAI’s Usage Policies, which prohibit the use of ChatGPT for ‘suicide’ or ‘self-harm.’”
This is a Seussian evil capitalist response. When it benefitted it, OpenAI was willing to blame a child they aided in committing suicide rather than take blame.
The OpenAI website says “We have safeguards in place to help people, especially teens, when conversations turn sensitive. We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations and guide people toward real-world support.”
This public statement on the situation shows no change. To me, it implies there were safeguards able to help when this happened, which is problematic. If they were implemented and effective, Raine would still be here.
Beyond poor implementation of mental health safeguards in these platforms, there is something worrying happening in the legislature surrounding AI.
On Dec. 11, President Donald Trump issued an executive order surrounding AI stating it is the policy “of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.”
Essentially, the federal government is loosening up restrictions on AI. It also means state legislatures will not be allowed to make their own laws not adhering to federal AI laws.
This ties to the fact Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, pledged $1 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration fund.
National Public Radio reported, “OpenAI CEO Sam Altman intends to make a $1 million personal donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, the company confirmed to NPR.”
This, along with large donations from other AI giants, paints a clear picture on OpenAI’s motives. AI is paying its way toward legal impunity and looking to make major amounts of money from it.
Who does this affect? Well, it affects everyone. Other than negatively impacting mental health struggles, AI has also had a huge impact in the environment and academia.
“By 2026, the electricity consumption of data centers is expected to approach 1,050 terawatt-hours (which would bump data centers up to fifth place on the global list, between Japan and Russia),” said Adam Zewe for MIT News.
“This complete dependence on AI also raises a generation of academics with no meaningful insight or skill other than the ability to engineer AI prompts,” James Hayton wrote for PhD.academy.
There’s some terrifying implications here. Perhaps, people in the future will be so used to AI solving problems for them, they won’t have critical thinking skills. Perhaps, it’ll continue to grow and do irreparable damage to the Earth. Perhaps, without legal restriction, it’ll encourage more people to hurt themselves.
So, what can you do to change it?
Policy is truly the only thing that could possibly hold AI back, since obviously the people standing to make a profit from AI won’t do anything to hamper it.
Whether you’re within voting age or not, keep yourself updated on politics. It is, understandably, something people want to stay away from mentally for their own sake, but it is arguably more important in the long run to keep yourself and your community updated. After all, it’s a vote that gets things to change.
