AI IN HEALTHCARE
There is a version of AI mental health support that could be genuinely transformative. There is another version that is actively harmful. The market currently contains both, and most users cannot tell them apart.
The accessibility argument for AI mental health tools is real and serious. Therapy is expensive, geographically constrained, and in many areas subject to waiting lists measured in months. An AI that can provide cognitive behavioural techniques, support someone through a difficult moment, or help them track mood patterns is potentially reaching people who would otherwise have no access to any support at all.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
The clinical evidence for AI mental health tools is thin and inconsistent. A handful of well-designed studies show modest positive effects for specific applications — CBT-based apps for mild to moderate anxiety and depression, in particular. But the apps with the largest user bases are not the ones with the best clinical evidence. They’re the ones with the best marketing.
“The apps with the largest user bases are not the ones with the best clinical evidence. They’re the ones with the best marketing.”
The Dependency Risk
The concern I hear most from clinical psychologists working in this space is not that AI tools will replace human therapists — it’s that some users will form a relationship with an AI that substitutes for human connection rather than supplementing it. An AI that is always available, always patient, never judgmental, and never tired is appealing in ways that real human relationships, with their friction and demands, cannot match. For people with social anxiety or attachment difficulties, that dynamic could be genuinely harmful.
These risks don’t negate the potential benefits. But they do suggest the regulatory framework for AI mental health tools needs to be considerably more rigorous than it currently is.
Tags: Artificial Intelligence • Opinion • Technology & Society • 192.168.1.22/