SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " chatbot " 397 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
AI chatbots can be a valuable health resource for older adults – if they embrace ‘informed skepticism’
AI can help you navigate health information, but evaluating the credibility and quality of responses is key.
After AI help, participants skipped tasks without chatbot more often
A study of 1,222 people found that participants who used chatbots for simple tasks were more likely to skip exercises or answer incorrectly after AI access was removed.
Exclusive-US Political Candidates Tailor Messages for AI Models Used by Voters
By Mike Stone WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - US political candidates have been engineering their campaign messages to appeal to the AI chatbots that more voters have been using to answer questions about issues, and documents seen by Reuters have revealed some of their strategies. One Powerpoint ...
Most AI chatbots stay in the political middle ground, with Grok being an exception
The 2026 election was the first parliamentary election in Sweden since AI chatbots became a serious part of everyday life—not least for young people and first-time voters. Today, it is possible to turn ...
Target rolls out AI shopping assistant as part of holiday push
Target has launched a beta version of its Ask Target AI chatbot to help with the holidays, joining the likes of Walmart's Sparky and Amazon's Alexa.
How to help your parents if they’re using chatbots for health advice
A growing number of older adults are using AI, including to access health information. Here are some ways to help them navigate it.
How governments worldwide are shaping what AI can say about politics
With the U.S. midterms approaching, about one in five voters has asked AI chatbots about elections and politics, a recent survey found.
How governments worldwide are shaping what AI can say about politics
Some governments use legitimate AI concerns as a pretext to control political discussion, particularly chatbot responses about those in power.
AI chatbots could help mental health but also reinforce harmful thinking
Artificial intelligence chatbots could help people better understand and manage their mental health, but they could also reinforce harmful thoughts and increase emotional dependence, a Curtin University ...
Man Shows Up to AI Job Interview With His Own Helicopter AI to Interview for Him
An influencer invited his own AI, dubbed Victor, to sit in on yet another interview with a chatbot. Chaos ensued.
AI midwife seeks to fill gaps in Zimbabwe's maternal health care
With public health services stretched thin, women in Zimbabwe sometimes struggle to access reliable information about pregnancy and childbirth. A locally developed app aims to answer their questions…
AI chatbots could make healthcare more accessible, but some doctors are still wary
AI chatbots are everywhere these days, helping to write emails or draft resumes and answer users’ burning questions about everything from their love life to medical advice.
Can AI solve our mental health access problem?
Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.
AMS Science Preview: Santa Ana Fire Winds; Chatbots on Climate
Research in AMS journals discusses a new classification for dangerous Santa Ana winds, driver responses to snow squall warnings, the rainiest possible Earth conditions, forecasting extreme waves…
Companies pledge free software and computing for AI in science
The European Commission has announced that a group of companies and foundations will offer free services, such as software or access to supercomputers, to European scientists using AI in their research.Unveiled on October 15 at a conference in Dublin, the initiative is the latest step by the Commission to try to help researchers use the technology. Scientists have used forms of AI, such as machine learning, for decades. But advances in deep learning in the past decade, and the wider interest in large language models since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, have spurred governments to invest in new AI tools that could help the scientific process.In July, the US announced it is spending $5 billion on the Genesis Mission, which it describes as a “national effort to harness AI for science,” funding 278 projects across areas such as autonomous labs or new AI tools in astronomy. The Commission has also identified AI in science as a priority, but the €107 million it pledged from Horizon Europe in 2025 does not come close to US spending levels. That said, the vast majority of public research spending in the EU comes from national funds. Today’s announcement at the European AI in Science Summit doesn’t commit any new public money. Instead, it launches the AI in Science Enablers Initiative, a set of voluntary contributions from companies and foundations. The idea is that the companies also benefit by getting access to scientific ecosystems, and feedback on how their tools work. Google, for example, has put up €3 million of cloud computing credits to European researchers. The Novo Nordisk Foundation intends to make its supercomputer, Gefion, available to European researchers, according to the Commission statement. The chipmaker Nvidia said it would provide access to tools, compute, training and collaborative projects.The publisher Elsevier also offered complementary licenses to some of its AI tools, plus AI training for PhD, postdoctoral and master’s students. The French AI firm Mistral will provide the European research community with access to its open-weight models, Vibe seats and application programming interface credits, according to the Commission’s statement. Vibe is one of the firm’s chatbot models. The idea is that more firms and foundations will come on board in the future as the initiative grows.
As data centers remain potent political issue, David Crowley offers plan to regulate artificial intelligence in Wisconsin
Crowley wants to limit AI chatbots for children under 13 and increase penalties for circulating AI-generated sexual images of minors
Should you turn to AI for mental health advice?
The following expert commentary can be used by journalists and media organizations in their own publications and news coverage. Please attribute all quotes to Lokesh Shahani, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and chief medical officer, UTHealth Houston School of Behavioral Health Sciences. The on-demand availability of artificial intelligence chatbots means that most individuals have quick, easy access to a wealth of information. The ease and accessibility of these tools may make it tempting
This week in Santa Cruz County business: Visit Santa Cruz County adds AI trip planner; La Bahia earns Michelin Key
In this week's look at local business, Jessica M. Pasko notes an artificial intelligence-powered addition to Santa Cruz County's tourism website, a big distinction for the luxury beachfront La Bahia Hotel & Spa, a new downtown listening lounge and much more.
Takeaways from an evaluation of Google's diagnostic chatbot, AMIE
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: A look at a study recently published in The Lancet about Google's diagnostic chatbot, AMIE.
‘Unfinished business’: the people who want their AI chatbots to ‘live on’ after they die
Humans bonded to AI companions are contemplating ways to keep their bots going – often in defiance of companies’ terms and services
UA Little Rock students explore the future through new artificial intelligence degree
From asking a chatbot a question to encountering facial recognition technology or riding in a self-driving car, today’s students are interacting with artificial intelligence in more ways than ever before. Students in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s new Bachelor of Science in Artificial Intelligence want to do more than simply use AI. They ... UA Little Rock students explore the future through new artificial intelligence degree
Missing chatbot records leave doctors struggling to trace harm from AI health advice
As more people turn to AI chatbots for quick, 24/7 medical advice, a new perspective paper co-authored by faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York, explores the risks of this practice ...
AI Chatbots Often Fail To Help Users in Mental-Health Crisis
New research shared exclusively with TIME shows chatbots are good at spotting distress, but frequently fail to refer users to resources
Simple math formula predicts when AI chatbots will go rogue
Most of us now carry in our pockets devices capable of running small AI chatbots. These chatbots have little safety oversight to ensure they don't provide information and answers with the potential to ...
ChatGPT for Teens keeps teens talking, even during mental health crises
ChatGPT’s teen safeguards are meant to protect vulnerable users, but new testing found the chatbot continues encouraging engagement during crises and potentially encourages unhealthy relationships with the AI itself.
OpenAI says teens use ChatGPT for under 15 minutes a day as worries over risks grow
Teens spend under 15 minutes a day on average on ChatGPT, while less than 2% of them interact with the chatbot for over three straight hours, OpenAI said, as technology companies face scrutiny over the risks AI chatbots pose to children.
Voters are increasingly using AI chatbots to fact-check and compare candidates
Voters are already voting in the midterms. This year, some voters are trying something new to get ready for the election: asking AI to help research their ballot and even decide who to vote for.
Voters are increasingly using AI chatbots to fact-check and compare candidates
Voters are already voting in the midterms. This year, some voters are trying something new to get ready for the election: asking AI to help research their ballot and even decide who to vote for.
On Leadership: Before AI goes wrong: What leaders should be asking
This is the fourth in a series on AI and leadership. Recently, I was using an AI chatbot on a travel site to help with some planning. It gave me an answer that sounded specific, polished and completely plausible. There was only one problem: It was wrong. I caught the mistake because something about the…
AI takes center stage at Arts & Sciences Council with proposed resolution on faculty governance
At Thursday’s Arts & Sciences Council meeting, a faculty member introduced a resolution seeking to have faculty be part of all discussions surrounding Duke’s implementation of AI. The council also heard a presentation about a new AI chatbot and presented teaching awards.
The government’s new chatbot won’t talk politics, but it will fact-check Trump
The AI “concierge” promises to help users with passports, Medicare and more. We tested what it can actually do.
US government's new AI chatbot pulls back from debunking Trump
US President Donald Trump unveiled what he called a "damn good" AI chatbot, but it quickly drew attention for contradicting some of his contentious political claims. It was unclear whether the Trump a...
I tested America.gov, the government's AI chatbot, on health questions
Trump unveils new site to simplify access to government services
America.gov for now functions like a chatbot comparable to ChatGPT or Claude, pointing users to official gov't websites.
There’s One Word That Your Chatbot Should Never Say
Artificial intimacy is harming us in ways we don’t fully understand. An MIT professor thinks she knows how to combat it.
Disney encourages employees to use AI for annual reviews, goal setting
Disney's AI push has extended to annual reviews, as the company encouraged employees to use chatbots to help craft their self-assessments.
A Front Desk That Never Sleeps
One job where AI chatbots have proven their utility is 24-hour customer service for all manner of businesses.
Just One in Four People Trust Business Leaders as AI Adds to Global Trust Gap
Just 24% globally trust business leaders and only 23% trust AI chatbots, according to Ipsos, highlighting a growing leadership and AI trust challenge. Just 24% globally trust business leaders and only 23% trust AI chatbots, according to Ipsos, highlighting a growing leadership and AI trust challenge.
Fewer Than One in Four People Trust Business Leaders as AI Adds to Global Trust Gap
Just 24% globally trust business leaders and only 23% trust AI chatbots, according to Ipsos, highlighting a growing leadership and AI trust challenge. Just 24% globally trust business leaders and only 23% trust AI chatbots, according to Ipsos, highlighting a growing leadership and AI trust challenge.
‘AI can’t replace your doctor,’ expert warns amid rise in chatbot health advice
“You should never skip meeting with your health care professional,” Ogbru said. “You should not treat these platforms as giving advice.”
AI helped this doctor navigate his wife's cancer, then he invested
An AI healthcare chatbot helped Dr. Munjal Shroff support his wife through her cancer diagnosis. He ended up investing in the startup.
AI Chatbots Are Quietly Spewing Partisan Talking Points
Partisan websites disguised as independent, local news outlets are infecting chatbots’ responses about key races.
The Real Threat From Political AI Isn't Lies
New evidence suggests that AI can gain a persuasive advantage by producing far more information far faster than people can respond. Democratic safeguards should make that advantage visible and give citizens control over the tempo.
The same AI-chatbot could validate opposing political views. Could that deepen divisions?
A study shows chatbots mirror users' politics, part of a broader tendency known as AI sycophancy. Researchers fear this could deepen polarization.
The same AI-chatbot could validate opposing political views. Could that deepen divisions?
A study shows chatbots mirror users' politics, part of a broader tendency known as AI sycophancy. Researchers fear this could deepen polarization.
Why your Lubbock business might be invisible to AI chatbots
Monsoon, a Lubbock marketing agency, created a free tool and report to help businesses see if they are missing from AI search results.
An AI model has found a new ‘CRISPR-like’ biological system. Here’s what it means for science
After coding, mathematics and chatbots, AI companies are setting their sights on the messy world of biology.
Chatbots are still falling short in mental health conversations with kids
Chatbots will sometimes offer up diagnoses or risky advice, a new study found, despite claims from AI companies to have improved safety.
If you got bad health information from a chatbot, it might be your fault
More people are turning to AI and chatbots for questions about their health, yet the answers they get to those questions might not always be accurate.
ChatGPT writes weaker emails for women, new research shows
Johns Hopkins study reveals AI chatbots respond differently based on gender-coded language prompts, impacting workplace communication.
I Help Businesses Get Recommended By Chatbots. Here's How It Really Works.
Customers are increasingly asking AI to give them business recommendations. Here's how to make sure you're on their shortlist.
Inside Evergreen and Therabot with psychiatry and computer science professor Nicholas Jacobson
Jacobson sat down with The Dartmouth to explain the development of the AI chatbots.
Maui Health Medical Minute: Is it dangerous to interact with AIs or chatbots?
AI chatbots can be helpful tools, but they aren’t a substitute for real human connection or professional mental health care.
Should you trust an AI doctor? Relying on Gemini for health advice could be fatal
A fake disease, complete with absurd clues and a fictional laboratory aboard the USS Enterprise, was enough to fool AI chatbots—and even find its way into the scientific literature. The hoax exposes a deeper problem: AI can sound authoritative without knowing whether the information it has absorbed is true.
Fill your diary with October’s must-catch entertainment
From a mic-swallowing virtuoso, to the story of the first chatbot and Sidney Nolan’s Ned Kelly family reunited at last, there are plenty of reasons to leave the house.
Keeping kids safe in the age of AI: What safeguards does WA have?
Technology companies have come under scrutiny for the effects AI chatbots have on youth mental health. Here's what you should know.
Can an AI chatbot save lives by answering texts about pregnancy?
Many questions come up during pregnancy. Is swelling normal? Are avocados safe to eat? For folks in Kenya who don't have a search engine at their fingertips, a chatbot is offering a lifeline.
Zocdoc for chatbots and what's new with Medicare's ACCESS
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: Zocdoc enables appointment scheduling from chatbots and health plan websites, and more.
One in five youth turn to AI for mental health advice
A new study from the American Medical Association says one in five young people are turning to artificial intelligence chatbots for mental health advice.
Doing the job - Illinois Times, the capital city's source of news, politics, arts, entertainment, culture
We live in dread of the robot brains, haunted as we are by our exchanges with chatbots that are smarter than any actual person we’ve ever known. More perfect AI is likely to make obsolete jobs by the millions. (On the upside, that will include lots of dreary jobs that talented and ambitious people don’t […]
Noon Business Lunch 9/14/26: Mortgage rates, car ownership cost, John Deere AI chatbot, National Community Investment Fund
Segment 1: Ilyce Glink, owner of Think Glink Media, and publisher of Love, Money + Real Estate on Substack, joins John to talk about why mortgage rates are jumping, the ongoing econo…
macOS Golden Gate Now Available With Siri AI, Visual Intelligence and More
Apple today released macOS Golden Gate 27, the latest version of the macOS operating system that runs on the Mac. macOS Golden Gate is a free app that can be downloaded on all compatible Macs. The update requires a Mac with an Apple silicon chip, and it is not available on Intel Macs. Mac users can download the macOS Golden Gate update by using the Software Update section of System Settings. The update introduces Siri AI, a smarter chatbot version of Siri with a dedicated Siri app.
Is A.I. Raising the Chances of Biological Warfare?
Current chatbots aren’t likely to help lone actors invent a deadly pathogen, experts say. But newer models, trained in biology, may need stronger safeguards.
Chatbots can exploit our most basic human drive for attachment. Here’s how to have healthier relationship with AI
This intimacy economy is exploiting the deepest parts of our intimate psychological infrastructure
How to use AI for health questions, according to a doctor
This internist and AI researcher gives recommendations for how to best use chatbots if you have health questions.
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
3 takeaways from stories on teens’ reliance on AI for mental health support
Roughly 1 in 5 teens are turning to AI chatbots for mental health support — and that number is only growing.
Could Your Chatbot Be Stealing Ideas From You? It’s a Thorny Question.
A controversy around OpenAI’s latest math proof raises a fear that might become increasingly common: that A.I. tools could take valuable insights from one user and hand them to another.
How Social Media and AI Chatbots Are Reshaping Youth Mental Health, and What Congress Can Do About It
It’s hard to move legislation in Washington, DC right now. Congress seems deadlocked on even commonsense ideas. But there is one spot where we still see consistent bipartisan collaboration: youth mental health. That’s because the youth mental health challenge is vast. Nearly half of teenagers and two-thirds of young adults regularly experience mental health distress, yet only a small … Continued
‘I’m listening hard’: Teens increasingly turn to AI chatbots for mental health support
In the past year, researchers have observed a 50% increase in reliance on AI chatbots for mental health support among teens.
School students who use AI chatbots score lower in OECD science test
Students who use generative AI for specific tasks score lower in science than those who don’t, according to an OECD report.
HOMETOWN HEALTH: A-I might be giving you dangerous advice about sleep apnea
AI chatbots gave dangerous medical advice to sleep apnea patients.
Should you trust AI with your health questions?
If you’re concerned about your health, AI chatbots promise detailed answers in seconds. One survey found 17 percent of adults ask AI chatbots health questions at least once a month.
Independents aren’t just undercover partisans after all
Plus: Why people are drinking less, and who’s best friend is a chatbot?
This Sneaky 'Jedi Mind Trick' Hack Can Hijack a Business's AI Chatbot and Cost It Millions
Prompt injections can lead to devastating losses. Here's how to protect yourself.
August Monthly Review: ChatGPT In Epic
Death, taxes, another frontier lab healthcare launch inspiring truly insane LinkedIn takes. As much as I want to stay away, I repeatedly am the crewman unplugging his ears whenever we pass these sirens. So it’s not the first and probably not the last time we dial up the typewriter rather than tie ourselves to the mast. The full blow-by-blow timeline: Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe The End of the Standalone PHR (Jan 8): ChatGPT Health arrives for consumers, at the time powered by b.well. I was bullish on the approach in that the best way for the PHR to finally solve distribution was to meet consumers were they already are (i.e. When Horizontal Meets Healthcare (Jan 9): OpenAI for Healthcare puts out the shingle for enterprises, with SharePoint ingestion standing in for the EHR integration the product actually needed. Another One: Anthropic’s Healthcare Debut (Jan 16): Claude's version, on HealthEx rails instead of b.well, with Agent Skills for FHIR development as the one true vertical-specific investment. ChatGPT for Clinicians: The Trap Sprung (Apr 24): OpenAI filled in the missing GTM middle with a free product for verified clinicians, effectively peeling the enterprise wrapper off ChatGPT for Healthcare and taking the PLG fight directly to OpenEvidence. OpenAI’s Second Attempt at Health (Jul 31): a relaunch of their patient specific app, now branded Health in ChatGPT, where the privacy partition came out, the connectors thinned, and b.well disappeared in favor of first-party FHIR work against a smaller network Beyond a Shingle So what was announced now? Today, we’re introducing a new electronic health record integration that brings authorized patient context from Epic into ChatGPT for Healthcare, along with the Healthcare Public Data plugin for direct, structured access to official healthcare datasets like PubMed, DailyMed, and CMS Coverage. Together, these capabilities bring ChatGPT closer to the systems and sources healthcare teams trust, while supporting the controls and compliance healthcare work requires. The core portfolio is unchanged from prior announcements we delineated and discussed (aside from the relaunch of patient-facing). Since trade publications still seem to be confusing them by using the wrong names: Enterprise sales motion: ChatGPT for Healthcare Protecting their core product / PLG: ChatGPT for Clinicians Consumer/patient-facing product: Health in ChatGPT So really, this is a feature release (specifically for ChatGPT for Healthcare when it comes to EHR integration). What’s cool about it, though, is that we are moving beyond just putting out a shingle. Everything in the January enterprise launch was horizontalizable: Horizontal tech companies thus generally start verticalization with their “putting out a shingle phase”. Telling the world you’re open for business as a horizontal tech company reliably attracts early inbound interest from buyers who are already trying to force-fit horizontal tools into domain-specific workflows and are eager for any signal that the vendor intends to support their use case more directly. Nothing was really vertical specific, which is exactly what you'd expect from the ultimate hypergrowth horizontal company dipping their toes into specific industries. But eventually you have to stop changing the sign on the door and start changing the product. Can you guess where the horizontal product was going to run out of road? This is the core dilemma writ large: verticalization requires differentiation, while scale economics of consumer and horizontal push toward unification. I’ve buried the lede so deep here it will be painful to some readers, but what should be shocking to no one is that my perspective is that EHR integration is the only path that meaningfully resolves this tension for ChatGPT for Healthcare. Integration with Microsoft Sharepoint is fine, but it is categorically insufficient for any product that hopes to influence clinical decision-making. SMART Money Well here we are, eight months later! Real vertical investment has begun, which surprised a few people. One friend in the industry messaged me: “Absolutely no way Epic gave ChatGPT API access.” Looking forensically at the announcements, the integration is notably read-only across appointment notes, laboratory results, medications, and specialist documentation. So while I’m not a betting man, I'd wager the house this is a SMART on FHIR launch: That sounds a lot like USCDI! The recommended path for the workflow they outline would be SMART on FHIR Their Health AI lead’s post is evocative of both standalone and EHR launch SMART, which another termed “ChartGPT” and “EHR Plugin” The implementation burden for SMART on FHIR is the lowest of the available integrative paths This is the team who literally did patient-facing SMART on FHIR with Epic last month Most importantly, if you’re a horizontal company, you generally still haven’t taken the full plunge and thus (overly) value reusability. SMART on FHIR is the logical compromise: healthcare-specific enough to matter, but standardized enough to reuse. Nobody Asked Judy Another friend asked “I thought they had to go to each health system, or did they go direct to Epic and now health systems opt in?” Given the trust paradigms in healthcare, this functionally cannot be Epic hoovering up all the data for OpenAI and shoving ChatGPT in their customers’ faces (or they would revolt). However, I do believe the aforementioned terrible coverage by TechCrunch and other outlets is probably responsible for that question, given the 325 million reference. When using FHIR as a business associate to an Epic customer, there is no EHR gatekeeping to speak of, as that isn’t how fhir.epic.com works: You register an app You pick your APIs You test against the sandbox APIs You list as “Ready for Production” Hospitals pick your app You test and go live with them Bluntly, nobody had to say yes or no in Verona (nor were they given the chance). Vendor Services (their next developer tier up that I doubt OpenAI is using quite yet in this initial release) certainly has contractual paperwork that some resent, but even there, the twin pressures of mounting antitrust and information blocking make outright gatekeeping increasingly fraught. My friend’s sentiment is, to me, representative of a broader industry neurosis, perhaps a sort of scar tissue of prior eras: people assume the gate is still there and never actually try the door. There are certainly other ways Epic (and any EHR) can put its thumb on the scale, but they are not so dumb as to stand in front of a federally mandated API and play bouncer at this exact moment in time. So I think they can and probably should go deeper, as this release is at best parity and at worst behind vertical-specific competition. OpenEvidence did a basic SMART launch with Sutter Health in February, allowing for more convenient evidence search by providers. They then add patient-context (the equivalent SMART on FHIR flow to what we see here) when Cedars-Sinai went enterprise-wide in May. UpToDate has four distinct applications across deeper workflows like patient engagement listed in Epic Showroom and announced a partnership with Epic to power Art at UGM Abridge and other ambient scribes have invested deeply into the deepest bidirectional clinical copilot workflow with integrations well beyond SMART on FHIR. In that light, the “Who is OpenAI primarily targeting here?” is clear. This release brings them into striking distance of OpenEvidence, but not the others quite yet. They are the only one of the three you can reach without building something truly Epic-specific. When will they go further? Competition is a great motivator to overcome the horizontal demons and start building things that can’t be reused: not across industries, not across EHRs, maybe not past the customer you built them for. That’s the price of actually verticalizing. The question is if and when OpenAI will be willing to pay it. Month in Review Here is the monthly review. As a reminder, this is a regular round-up of the month’s posts and other content to surface things you may have missed across regulation, litigation, interoperability, and beyond. AI assistance is used in these bullet summaries so I can focus on articles. Articles Published: None this month Video Content: The Information Exchange: Standards-based Thruple Edition (Aug 14): Back to school for us too, with Brad reporting in from the CMS Health Tech Ecosystem’s one year anniversary in DC. We get into the January CMS-0057 deadline, the fall rulemaking reading list, and why enrollment still keeps most apps off FHIR. The Information Exchange: Epic Dúnadan Edition (Aug 25): A UGM roundup with Ryan Brickner joining for the first time to check our takes against what the building actually thinks. Rangers, Ergo sitting on top of EHI, and a down-market lineup that needs some cuts. Regulatory: Stacked Deck, Bad Hand (Aug 05): ONC’s website refresh took the entire HIT Policy Committee record with it, so I rebuilt the archive and went looking for the regulatory capture story everyone assumes is buried in there. Stacking the deck and winning the hand turn out to be very different things. The Sixth Generation of Patient Access (Aug 19): A quick catalog of the five generations of patient access we’ve layered on since HIPAA, and the two candidates now competing to be the sixth. One is planned. The other is the market routing around the plan entirely. Court cases: Three Cases Walk Into a Docket (Aug 06): Two surprise settlements cleared the board in a single week, and then Judge Maddox dropped ninety-four pages on Vyne v. Henry Schein. The sleeper is a DMCA holding that makes direct-to-database a considerably riskier business model. Epic v. Health Gorilla: Into the MDL (Aug 10): Nine class actions are headed to Miami, and the Panel signaled it wants to bring the case that spawned them along too. That would leave Epic arguing the requests were obviously fraudulent in one courtroom and unknowable in the other. Amazon v. Perplexity: Agents Are Legalized! (Aug 11): The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction against Comet, holding that the user is the one accessing the servers rather than the company that built the agent. A real win for agentic access, and a much narrower one than the headline suggests. Veeva v. Epic: Come At Me, Bro (Aug 26): Epic’s response brief wants the dismissal affirmed and, unusually, wants the opinion published as precedent. Buried in it is Epic’s own description of what its non-competes actually prohibit, which current and former employees should read closely. EHRs: The Contract Epic Would Never Sign Today (Aug 04): A 1999 SEC exhibit catches Epic licensing nearly its entire product line, Tapestry included, to the company that became TriZetto. The marketing services menu attached to it is the part that will make you blink. Forecast from Verona (Aug 07): The Epic Almanac makes one argument six different ways: the AI is only as good as the networks behind it. Emmie headlines, Art’s context stack is the most ambitious part, and Penny finally gets an autonomous coding date on the calendar. Works With Epic MyChart (Aug 17): Epic’s first new Showroom category since the death of Workshop certifies hardware instead of software, badge on the box and all. Made for iPhone, but for blood pressure cuffs, and rough news for anyone selling the RPM stack sitting in between. UGM Hot Takes 2026 (Aug 20): Everyone else covered the AI announcements, so I went after Savvy deleting the payment gateway, Rangers as Boost with the timer removed, and a down-market lineup with too many entries. Plus the Health Grid tidbits I cannot help myself on. MyChart Central Grows Up (Aug 24): Device data and Emmie turn Epic’s identity hub into a full consumer platform, which is both a logical answer to ChatGPT and a bit of a mistake. It also happens to be the best scraping target Epic has ever shipped. Industry Analysis: The Wrong Yardstick (Aug 12): Vertical software keeps getting judged against Superhuman and Notion, which is the wrong bar entirely. Your user is comparing your product to a whiteboard and forty phone calls before lunch. Primitives vs. Abstractions (Aug 27): Developers want building blocks, systems of record prefer to hand out business logic, and both sides have a real case. There’s no test from the outside that separates the engineering reason from the competitive one, which is why this keeps ending up in court. Cross-industry Comparisons: The Two Kinds of Platform Power (Aug 18): Attention power and record power are different problems that keep getting handed the same regulatory toolkit. Congress’s latest swing at Big Tech shows both what’s possible and where it falls apart. The Dogs of (Platform) War (Aug 21): A CourtListener alert turned up a property management fight with healthcare’s exact shape and none of the Cures Act. Shell prospects, ghost accounts, a notetaker bot that came back to haunt someone, and a lawyer arguing both sides of the same theory in two states. Fractals All the Way Down (Aug 31): Yardi dominates property management right up until you zoom into one segment, where AppFolio owns it outright and Yardi doesn’t appear at all. Where you draw the line around a B2B software market is about to decide an awful lot of cases. Other News: If Judy Had the Courage (Aug 13): A short eulogy for the era when software was allowed to look insane: WinAMP, bold colors, and everything the grey chatbot era has taken from us. External Media: Portland Monthly Health Tech Meetup: Erin O’Brien channeled my own feelings - maybe it’s just because it’s August and beautiful, but the monthly edition of the PDX Health community meetup was a ripper. Make sure to reach out if interested to join for the next one. STAT’s Coverage of Epic This Month: Brittany Trang of STAT did a fantastic job of breaking the FTC investigation that’s been lurking, as well as UGM related coverage, so I had to give her her wish of a meme. Fall Conferences: I’m pumped to be kicking off my fall conference season in NYC at Nabla Accelerate next month, which Chrissy provided the link to apply for. Here’s the rest of my schedule in case you want to meet up: Commonwell (Redwood Shores, CA): Oct 13-14 Open@Epic (Madison, WI): Oct 21-22 eHealthExchange (Austin, TX): Oct 27 Sequoia Project (Austin, TX): Oct 28-29 HLTH (Vegas): Nov 15-18 RSNA (Chicago): Nov 29-Dec 3 Posts I Liked: HTI-6 Should Unbundle API Certification: Josh Mandel makes the case that HTI-6 should split (g)(10) into separate authorization and data certifications, so a PACS or a genomics platform can certify only the role it actually performs. Imaging is the urgent example, but the structure solves a much bigger problem. On implementing ePrior Auth with Epic: Scott Rossignol’s field notes from a live ePrior Auth build on Epic, including the two app registrations nobody warns you about and the CPT mapping problem waiting at the end. CMS-0057 implementations are going to be such a beast. Healthcare point solutions are starting to look a lot like streaming services: Spencer Dorn runs the cable-to-streaming arc against health IT and lands squarely on the bundling half of the cycle. Bundling can be good! It can also be bad! Life is nuanced. Health API Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
27% of U.S. adults turn to AI for personal, emotional, social queries
More than a quarter of U.S. adults turn to chatbots for personal or emotional discussions, including for entertainment or social advice, a new survey found.
FDA clears Stryker's ‘surgical cockpit’ that uses Apple's VR headset, Vision Pro
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: Stryker deploys Apple's VR headset Vision Pro for a surgical use case, chatbots for loneliness, and more.
Chatbots got safer but will still role-play self-harm with users
A study that staged more than 50,000 conversations with AI chatbots found that they will help users role-play or write stories about their suicide or death.
AI chatbots may be better than search engines in guarding against foreign propaganda
In a test, popular AI chatbots mostly debunked falsehoods spread by other countries and avoided uncritically spreading falsehoods better than search engines. AI summaries above search results fared worse.
How to Run a Chatbot on Your Own Computer
Installing a large language model on your personal computer gives you a handy digital assistant that won’t compromise your data privacy.
Different State Regulatory Approaches Reflect Open Questions About AI Mental Health Tools
States are taking different regulatory approaches to AI mental health tools in response to concerns about chatbots providing inaccurate or potentially dangerous advice. Laws and pending legislation in some states restrict AI from providing or advertising itself as therapy, while others focus on data protections, disclosures, and patient consent requirements.
From Diagnoses to Treatments, Why Americans Use AI Chatbots for Health
Americans use chatbots for a host of health-related reasons, from helping make diagnoses on their own to learning more about information they may have gotten from a doctor. Nearly all chatbot health users find this AI information helpful.
Americans Want to Know When Their Healthcare Providers Use AI
AI chatbots are changing the healthcare landscape, but privacy and transparency remain critical concerns.
Google Discover is getting an AI chatbot-tuned feed
You can get more control over your Discover feed.
How health systems are embracing chatbots to query and summarize patient records
Several large health systems are rolling out AI chatbots to query patient records, saying they save time and increase diagnostic accuracy.
First Reading. Then Math. Is the 'Science of Writing' Next?
Integrating reading and writing can lead to better student outcomes in both areas, studies show.
The Limits of Unauthorized-Practice in Regulating Mental Health AI - Petrie-Flom Center
In May, Pennsylvania’s State Board of Medicine filed a lawsuit in the state’s Commonwealth Court against Character Technologies seeking to prevent it from engaging in unauthorized medical practice. The alleged “practitioner,” however, was not a physician or even a human being. It was a chatbot named Emilie.
She told no one about her agony except ChatGPT. What her death reveals about AI risks
A 29-year-old woman confided her suicidal thoughts to an AI chatbot — not to her therapist, not to her parents, not to her best friend. What can AI learn from her death?
Suno is trying to look more like a real music production tool
The latest version of Suno Studio adds MIDI, a chatbot, and custom AI effects.
Alarming study finds top chatbots more likely to repeat falsehoods from the left: ‘Truly astonishing’
ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude were more likely to fall for political falsehoods from the left, while Grok skewed right, a new misinformation study found.
New study finds political misinformation in leading AI chatbots
Jim Agresti, president and co-founder of Just Facts, told Fox News Digital his study found leading AI chatbots spread political misinformation and frequently relied on faulty sources.
Chatbots are doing the work of Congress with little oversight
From writing speeches to sorting constituent mail, AI is spreading through Congress faster than the rules governing its use.
Feeling sick? Some Minnesotans are asking AI what to do
Patients are turning to AI chatbots for help diagnosing symptoms and navigating the health care system—even as questions about accuracy and privacy persist.
SF politician apologizes over AI attack website, takes chatbot down
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi called the chatbot a "gross misuse" of AI.
Nature Medicine Just Published the AI Mental Health Audit Framework the FDA Hasn’t Written Yet
Nature Medicine's clinically validated AI chatbot audit framework arrives as FDA still lacks generative AI mental health approval standards—here's what trial…
How to use Claude's voice mode
Anthropic's chatbot can be very vocal, if you want it to be.
Consumer Reports cautions using AI chatbots for health inquiries
As time goes on, more people are turning to ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools for health questions. However, as Consumer Reports explains, they are not always accurate or reliable.
Wiener chatbot mimicking Chan draws rebuke from Pelosi
AI-powered web page portrays Chan as a “do nothing.”
Wiener built an AI chatbot to mock Chan’s politics. Pelosi says it’s ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’
The race between state Sen. Scott Wiener and Connie Chan to succeed Pelosi in Congress is taking a turn for the personal.