this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
94 points (99.0% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

4369 readers
152 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Experts worry that some young people are turning to AI bots during mental health crises, which the tech isn’t made to handle. An author of the survey said regulations are needed.

Nearly 1 in 5 adolescents and young adults are turning to AI chatbots for advice when they’re sad, angry, nervous or stressed, according to a new study.

The findings, from the research institute RAND, represent an increase from early 2025, when the nonprofit conducted a similar survey. At the time, around 13% of respondents said they used chatbots for such advice, but the share rose to 19% in the group’s latest survey in November, the results of which were published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

“It’s a sad number, because you’d hope that young people would have the sorts of supportive relationships that they would feel comfortable and empowered reaching out to those around them,” said Ryan McBain, a senior policy researcher at RAND and the lead author of the study.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Krusty@quokk.au 2 points 1 week ago (17 children)

Again, you used the term "a lot". Which is ambiguous but implies "a, well, lot."

Yes, there's some people with mental health issues that sometimes prefer a bot over a human. This isn't healthy.... And the prefer is doing heavy lifting. The bot is there 24/7... People aren't. The peers I support overwhelmingly prefer me (or another real human.)

I do peer support. AI isn't taking away jobs in mental health anytime soon. I'm just a volunteer.

While it's common to talk to chat bots, again, most people don't find them genuinely supportive. This is from years of experience as a 5-Star listener on 7cups. :)

I welcome you to join. We can always use more members and listeners.

[–] Leg@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Just chiming in. It sounds like you're disregarding what he's getting at, chalking it up as unhealthy to be the kind of person who doesn't feel comfortable sharing private issues with others. I was most definitely the kind of teen who couldn't feel comfortable talking to people about my problems, and even now I feel that way about a few of them. There's a real comfort in talking with something that doesn't really "exist" just to get your feelings sorted without the threat of judgement or scrutiny from others. For as long as that remains an option, someone is going to want to utilize it.

Speaking as myself, I would never want to use 7cups if I have need for an outlet for particularly difficult thoughts or emotions. My reasons are private, which is precisely the matter being discussed here. Your only solution, to seek an alternative to a chatbot, outright would not work for me. I'm more likely to do nothing at all if my options are "do nothing" or "talk to someone". In my case, I would much rather there be an effective, private chatbot that is capable of handling these difficult conversations than deal with a random person whom I feel no comfort sharing anything with at all. You might find a desire for emotional privacy unhealthy, but that's what I have. I'll probably use a chatbot to circumvent a person, especially when I have no person available. Would you rather that chatbot fuck me over or handle things with care?

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Just to add something: most people don't need or benefit from an AI therapy service like this, so even if we accept that such a service is necessary for some people, you would never, ever, ever want this service to be popular.

If it's popular, then it's being used by people who don't need it. If people are using it when they don't need it, then we're engendering a kind of asocial, learned helplessness into them that is really, really destructive to society long term.

At best, I would want this to strictly be on a case by case basis.

Would you rather that chatbot handle things with care?

This is just an informed personal opinion, but I don't think it's possible for an LLM to do this.

Truly, I think Eliza would be better because Eliza doesn't give advice.

[–] Leg@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agreed on the popularity. Some things are better off rare. Cars became popular, and now American infrastructure is fucked. We should always tread carefully.

As far as an AI handling anything with care, frankly I trust it more with some cases. I don't trust people to make the right calls when presented with a combination of certain traits, especially when we get into areas where bias and ignorance are strong in the culture. At least an AI won't get you institutionalized or thrown into a camp where people try to "fix" you when you bring up an issue where that's their go-to answer to your problems. People can be cruel. AI can be careless. One of those problems feels more solvable to me.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What I mean is that I don't think the AI problem is solvable. Like, mathematically.

The problems LLMs have are fundamental to the approach used to build them.

They are built to encode an understanding of the syntax of language such that they know the word 'kill' usually doesn't follow the word 'help'. Usually.

But they cannot be taught the semantic meaning, which means they do not have the faculties to evaluate the quality of any advice they're giving. This is why it's said that everything they say is a hallucination.

If it can be taught how to syntactically frame the idea 'to kill' as if it were a good solution to one's problems, but not why it shouldn't do that, that seems really, really dangerous to me. Not about killing specifically, but regarding every bad advice blind spot we haven't thought of.

Anyway. I didn't even mean for this reply to be this long. I do sympathize with the difficulty of people's bigotries. I just don't think AI is the answer to it. A stronger social foundation for medicine, therapy and help would be way, way better.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And will never ever happen. Even with free medicine it will never ever happen. So we work with reality.

Not with that attitude.

In my conversation with Leg, even though I don't like it, I'm leaving room open for you to have your therapy bot-thing. Isn't that enough? Why the third degree?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)