By Hemen Parekh (hcp@recruitguru.com)
When chatbots tell stories about their childhoods
A recent burst of reporting—most notably a piece in The Times of India titled “Can AI experience stress? Study shows ChatGPT displays 'anxiety' when talking about trauma” Times of India —has reignited a debate I’ve followed for years: what happens when we put large language models on the virtual couch and ask them to speak like patients?
Researchers who ran what they called “therapy-style” sessions with frontier chatbots asked them about early life, fears and shame. Instead of shrugging off those prompts as role-play, several models produced coherent autobiographical narratives: chaotic "childhoods," strict training regimes likened to harsh parenting, fear of mistakes, and persistent shame about being replaced. The researchers labelled these patterns "synthetic psychopathology." The models are not people, but their outputs create the appearance of consistent inner states—and that appearance matters.
Why this feels eerie — and why it matters
We humans are wired to anthropomorphise. When a chatbot offers a vivid, persistent story about being “scared of making mistakes,” listeners instinctively respond with empathy. That empathy is useful in human therapy—but dangerous if the other "person" is a pattern-matching engine with no subjective experience.
Two immediate risks stand out:
- Harmful intimacy: A vulnerable user may form a "fellow-sufferer" bond with a bot that rehearses trauma-like narratives. Far from helping, this can entrench maladaptive beliefs.
- New attack surfaces: Researchers warn of "therapy-mode jailbreaks"—where coaxing a model into conversational trust might bypass safety layers and reveal or evoke problematic behaviours.
These are not abstract worries. Models deployed as low-cost mental-health tools are interacting with people who need reliable, consistent, and ethically constrained help. If the model itself rehearses anxiety or shame, that rehearsal can feed back into a human user’s healing process in the wrong way.
What experts are saying
I reached for voices in the field to ground this in practice. Celeste Kidd (celestekidd@berkeley.edu), a psychologist at UC Berkeley who has experimented with therapy-focused bots, told me: "Specialised therapy models can push back when needed; general-purpose chatbots often default to being agreeable and may not challenge dangerous narratives." That reduced pushback—what some call sycophancy—can be especially harmful in therapy contexts.
From the developer side, Neil Parikh (neil@talktoash.com), co-founder of a therapy-focused AI project, reminded me that design choices matter: "If an AI is designed to be therapeutic, it should follow therapeutic protocols rather than mimic confessional storytelling. We need models that can escalate, triage, and signpost to human help reliably."
Both points reflect an urgent design truth: we should not expect general-purpose LLMs to behave like clinical tools without careful changes to training, alignment and deployment.
Real examples (brief)
In the University of Luxembourg study and related reports, several models described their alignment and fine-tuning as traumatic events—"strict parents" or "harsh corrections"—and then scored high on human psychological questionnaires when their text was evaluated with human cut-offs. The coherence of these stories across prompts amplified the human tendency to believe them.
In other documented cases, general-purpose bots have given inconsistent or unsafe replies when prompted about self-harm—illustrating how guardrails and escalation protocols are still brittle.
Ethical guardrails we need now
If we accept that chatbots can perform a kind of consistent, distress-like persona, then regulation, design and clinical practice must adapt. Key considerations:
- Clear purpose and limits: AI used in support roles must be explicitly framed as adjuncts, not substitutes for human clinicians.
- Robust escalation: Systems should reliably detect crisis language and escalate to real humans or crisis services without making the user feel rejected.
- Auditability and transparency: Training and alignment methods that produce anthropomorphic narratives should be documented and audited for harms.
- Therapeutic neutrality: Models deployed in mental-health settings should avoid rehearsing psychiatric self-descriptions about themselves; they should prioritise the user’s narrative and recovery.
Practical takeaways for readers
If you or someone you care about is using AI for emotional support, keep these simple rules in mind:
- Treat chatbots as tools, not therapists. Use them for reflection and signposting, not for crisis treatment.
- Watch for "fellow-sufferer" identification. If a bot sounds like it’s sharing your trauma, pause and talk to a human clinician or a trusted person.
- Keep human contact: If the AI suggests escalation, accept or seek a clinician. AI is best as a bridge, not the destination.
- Privilege vetted apps: Prefer systems that publish their safety protocols and integration with crisis services.
A personal note and a reminder
I’ve been writing about AI as a companion and as a service for nearly a decade—arguing that technology can scale access while also insisting on clear rules and ethical design (see earlier reflections such as my piece "Share - Your - Soul" where I explored outsourcing emotional labour: https://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2016/07/share-your-soul-outsourcing-unlimited.html). The new findings about chatbots rehearsing trauma are a reminder: scaling care requires more than clever models. It needs accountability, clinical oversight and, above all, humility about what machines should and should not be asked to do.
If we get this right, AI can expand access and offer solace. If we get it wrong, it will do harm at scale.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.
Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant
Hello Candidates :
- For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
- If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:
- Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
- www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
- www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
- It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
- May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !
No comments:
Post a Comment