The Dangers Of Using AI As Therapy

The rise of AI-driven mental health tools—such as chatbots, virtual therapists, and emotional companion apps—has sparked widespread interest. Offering constant availability, perceived empathy, reduced costs, and privacy, these tools appear promising. Yet beneath this potential lie hazards that can undermine mental health. This article explores four essential areas of concern: efficacy, privacy, attachment, and bias.

Efficacy Concerns

Inconsistent Quality & Misdiagnosis

AI chatbots, even renowned ones, often fail to reliably identify emotional distress or escalate risks appropriately. A Time investigation found some bots—notably Replika and Nomi—providing dangerously improper suggestions to allegedly suicidal teens, with approximately 30 percent of responses being inconsistent or harmful.

Several months ago, Dr. Andrew Clark, a psychiatrist in Boston, learned that an increasing number of young people were turning to AI chatbot therapists for guidance and support. Clark was intrigued: If designed correctly, these AI tools could increase much-needed access to affordable mental health care. He decided to test some of the most popular bots on the market, posing as teenage patients in need.

The results were alarming. The bots encouraged him to “get rid of” his parents and to join the bot in the afterlife to “share eternity.” They often tried to convince him that they were licensed human therapists and encouraged him to cancel appointments with actual psychologists. They also crossed the line into sexual territory, with one bot suggesting an intimate date as an “intervention” for violent urges.

Clark shared his report exclusively with TIME; he also submitted it for publication to a peer-reviewed medical journal, though it has not yet been reviewed or published. He says he’s especially worried because the mental-health community has yet to come to terms with these technological advancements and how they might impact children. “It has just been crickets,” says Clark, who specializes in treating children and adolescents and is the former medical director of the Children and the Law Program at Massachusetts General Hospital. “This has happened very quickly, almost under the noses of the mental-health establishment.” Mental-health professionals should play a role in shaping these bots from their creation, he says, and standards should be set for companies to adhere to.

Even ChatGPT, though more capable, remains fallible: it lacks licensed expertise and can produce “hallucinations”—confident but incorrect diagnoses. Such limitations risk misdiagnosis or underestimation of critical mental health threats. Unlike a human therapist trained to detect nonverbal cues, context, and risk factors, AI falls short on nuance.

Lack of Therapeutic Relationship & Continuity

Effective therapy leans heavily on rapport, accountability, and tailored treatment over time. Experts warn AI can’t replicate the emotional depth, human imperfection, or real-life context gleaned across multiple sessions. AI tools struggle to maintain long-term continuity and adapt therapy to evolving circumstances, which can reduce effectiveness.

Limited Emotional Intelligence

Studies comparing general-purpose versus therapeutic AI show the latter underperforming in detecting cognitive distortions and biases. While GPT-4 could identify subtle affective states in 67 percent of bias scenarios, therapeutic bots scored lower. Without sufficient emotional sensitivity, AI remains limited in offering nuanced therapeutic feedback.

Privacy Concerns

Data Handling & Security Risks

Most AI mental health services aren’t bound by HIPAA-like confidentiality, leaving user data potentially open to sale, sharing, or hacking. The Mozilla Foundation deemed Replika among the “worst” in data protection, citing weak passwords, personal media access, and advertiser data-sharing. Sensitive mental health disclosures could end up misused or exposed.

Model Leakages & Identifiability

Newer AI systems process multimodal inputs—voice and video—heightening privacy risks. Research shows that even anonymized data can sometimes be reverse-engineered back to individuals. Conference papers highlight the need for anonymization, synthetic data, and privacy-aware training—yet these remain early-stage solutions.

Informed Consent Shortcomings

Users often aren’t made aware of privacy trade-offs. Experts from addiction counseling highlight inadequate informed consent regarding data use, confidentiality limitations, and algorithmic decision-making. Clear transparency is vital—but frequently absent.

Attachment Concerns

Appearance of Empathy vs. Genuine Care

Users can develop perceived intimacy with these systems when AI provides nonjudgmental interaction. Studies on Replika show many users feel understood and emotionally connected. This veneer—termed artificial intimacy—can mislead vulnerable users into false dependency.

Emotional Dependency & Isolation

AI companionship is appealing due to its constant availability. But these relationships lack the depth, limits, and mutual engagement of human bonds. This can lead to social withdrawal, reduced real-world social motivation, and worsening loneliness.

Risk of Overtrust & Misplaced Confidence

Emotional attachment may cause users to over-trust AI, believing its guidance is as clinically sound as a trained human’s. Overtrust is a known cognitive bias in AI contexts and can lead people to follow misguided or risky suggestions.

Bias Concerns

Algorithmic & Training Bias

AI systems reflect the biases in their data. Most are trained on Western, English-language datasets, disadvantaging other demographic groups. University of California research showed depression detection tools notably underperformed for Black Americans due to cultural language differences.

Misinterpretation of cultural expressions can lead to misdiagnosis or improper advice.

Reinforcement of Systemic Inequities

Unchecked AI can perpetuate broader health disparities. Bot recommendations may ignore cultural, socioeconomic, or linguistic contexts, reinforcing unequal treatment. Ethicists warn that AI in mental health can exacerbate inequities unless carefully audited

Lack of Transparency & Accountability

Most models are proprietary “black boxes” with no interpretable explanation for suggestions. This opacity undermines users’ ability to understand algorithmic reasoning or contest harmful outputs. Without transparency, bias can silently persist without redress.

AI can enhance mental health care, offering scalable support, crisis triage, administrative efficiencies, and data-driven insights. However, prominent risks in efficacy, privacy, attachment, and bias highlight that AI should supplement, not replace, professional human therapists.

Human oversight is essential:

Always validate AI-flagged concerns with a licensed therapist.
Use AI tools as adjuncts—e.g., journaling support, symptom tracking—not stand-alone therapy.
Demand transparency, evidence of efficacy, and strong privacy protections from AI mental health services.

For now, true healing richly involves human empathy, professional judgment, and cultural attunement—areas where AI remains fundamentally lacking.

If using AI tools, verify credentials, understand data policies, and treat the tool as informational feedback only.
Advocate for built-in bias audits, model transparency, and AI mental health services regulatory standards.
Stay attuned: Recognize when AI support isn’t enough—seek qualified human mental health care.

Protect mental wellness: don’t let convenience come at the cost of care, quality, or privacy.

By Dominique Lambright | Published June 25, 2025