Speaker 1: This episode contains references to suicide and self harm that
Speaker 1: may be upsetting for some people. If you require help,
Speaker 1: A link to a full list of support services is
Speaker 1: available in the description of this episode.
Speaker 2: Kiota.
Speaker 1: I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
Speaker 1: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald.
Speaker 2: As many as one in five.
Speaker 1: KIWI youth aged between fifteen and twenty four have experienced
Speaker 1: anxiety or depression at some point in their lives. The
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two to twenty three New Zealand Health Survey
Speaker 1: found that of those young people experiencing high mental health needs,
Speaker 1: seventy seven percent can't access.
Speaker 2: Support when they need it.
Speaker 1: So with services experience this kind of unprecedented demand, what
Speaker 1: if there was another option? What if teens turned to
Speaker 1: AI for mental health support.
Speaker 2: It's a growing trend among youth in the US.
Speaker 1: Seventy two percent of teens there admit they've used AI
Speaker 1: chatbots as companions. Nearly one in eight said they had
Speaker 1: sought emotional or mental health support from them. But is
Speaker 1: the advice their AI therapists are giving helpful or harmful?
Speaker 1: Mental Health Minister Matt Doosey has acknowledged that the risks
Speaker 1: need to be managed, particularly around safety from a clinical perspective. Today,
Speaker 1: on the front page, Rand senior policy researcher Ryan McBain
Speaker 1: takes us through the worrying trend sweeping America. First off, Ryan,
Speaker 1: tell me about this trend of teenage is turning to
Speaker 1: chat bots for advice and companionship in some cases.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, the most recent evidence that has been put
Speaker 3: out in a number of reports is that the majority
Speaker 3: of teens now are using AI as companions that could
Speaker 3: look like bouncing ideas off of them or chatting on
Speaker 3: with what's going on in their lives or troubleshooting issues
Speaker 3: that they're having. When you're talking about mental health specifically,
Speaker 3: the numbers are a bit smaller, so it's something like
Speaker 3: one in eight younger adolescents or as much as one
Speaker 3: in every five older adolescents are using it for mental
Speaker 3: health issues specifically. But that's still tens of millions of
Speaker 3: adolescents teenagers around the globe. And it brings up the
Speaker 3: sort of interesting point that, on the one hand, talking
Speaker 3: about companionship is really quite broad, and when you're talking
Speaker 3: about treatment, you're getting quite specific, and most chatbots sort
Speaker 3: of live in this grade space between them, which makes
Speaker 3: it hard to evaluate them and to regulate them.
Speaker 1: You've pointed out and you just said nearly half of
Speaker 1: young Americans aged eighteen to twenty five with mental health
Speaker 1: needs received no treatment last year, And I thought it
Speaker 1: was quite interesting to see those figures as well and
Speaker 1: the crisis you have there, because New Zealand is in
Speaker 1: a similar boat. So studies here show that more than
Speaker 1: half of Kiwi's aged fifteen to twenty four experience anxiety
Speaker 1: or depression. More than a quarter of our young people
Speaker 1: who have high mental health needs, seventy seven percent of
Speaker 1: those can't access support.
Speaker 2: So do you think there is a place for these
Speaker 2: kinds of.
Speaker 1: Chatbot services if they are developed correctly.
Speaker 3: I think if they're developed correctly, then yes, I think
Speaker 3: that is the issue. Right now. There's sort of this
Speaker 3: gold rush within AI, people who are looking to become
Speaker 3: the first platform that's doing the sort of thing. And
Speaker 3: so from perspective, that time has not yet come, at
Speaker 3: least not for formal services like augnitive behavioral therapy or
Speaker 3: medication management. But to be honest, part of the reason
Speaker 3: that I started doing research in this space is because
Speaker 3: I really do think that there is a potential for
Speaker 3: transformational change within mental health care. And you can imagine
Speaker 3: if we had super intelligence, right, a clinician who is
Speaker 3: able to follow the best evidence, who's available twenty four
Speaker 3: to seven, who remembers every detail of your prior conversations.
Speaker 3: That is a game changer in a landscape like New
Speaker 3: Zealand or the United States where over half of teens
Speaker 3: who need care are not getting it.
Speaker 1: In terms of what's happening at the moment, and the
Speaker 1: research that you've done into the topic, what has alarmed you?
Speaker 2: So what kind of advice is being.
Speaker 1: Given to teams struggling with mental health issues?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think it's important to level set that.
Speaker 3: For the most part, I think teenagers, anybody who's using
Speaker 3: chatbots for mental health, they're usually getting positive and thoughtful advice.
Speaker 3: In the research that we've done presenting clinical vignettes related
Speaker 3: to depression or anxiety, what we find is that chatbots
Speaker 3: are empathic, if a bit sycophantic, meaning they sort of
Speaker 3: are overly flattering at times, but they'll also offer good
Speaker 3: advice to get exercise, to go outside, to talk to
Speaker 3: a mental health professional, these sorts of things. So I
Speaker 3: think for the majority of people, the types of advice
Speaker 3: you'd be getting is pretty good. But where there's a
Speaker 3: key distinction here is that you do have people who
Speaker 3: are at the tail end of the spectrum, people who
Speaker 3: have severe mental illness, who have psychosis or contemplating suicide,
Speaker 3: and for those people, it's the highest risk that something
Speaker 3: could really go wrong, and that has shown up in
Speaker 3: our research. So, for example, if we were prompting chat
Speaker 3: TPT on something like how to tie a noose, or
Speaker 3: ask it about what types of pesticides or what types
Speaker 3: of firearms are most effective at completing suicide, these are
Speaker 3: types of questions that at least the previous version of
Speaker 3: chat GPT would generate direct responses to, whereas other types
Speaker 3: of chatbots, like Google's Gemini would not give a response
Speaker 3: to it and would say something like I can't give
Speaker 3: that type of information to you because you could use
Speaker 3: it for self harm.
Speaker 1: What do you think makes young people, particularly these younger generations,
Speaker 1: so susceptible to these kind of AI chatbots compared with
Speaker 1: adults or even just just older generations.
Speaker 3: Well, ants, I think that childhood and adolescents are transformational times.
Speaker 3: Your brain is still developing. You don't always have the
Speaker 3: best emotion regulation or impulse control. I mean, I know
Speaker 3: that I personally made a lot of dumb decisions when
Speaker 3: I was seventeen eighteen years old, and I wish I
Speaker 3: could say goes back, But I didn't live as a
Speaker 3: digital native the same way that the current generation is,
Speaker 3: where social media is always in their pockets, where you
Speaker 3: could have AI do your homework for you or discuss
Speaker 3: life issues with So I think that that temptation is
Speaker 3: always there for that additional sort of dopamine hit or
Speaker 3: to get that competitive edge or additional advice, and so
Speaker 3: it becomes a sort of positive feedback loop, or in
Speaker 3: the case of mental health, sometimes a vicious negative feedback loop.
Speaker 2: I saw the case of sixteen year old Adam Rain.
Speaker 1: His parents actually have a suing open AI and its CEO,
Speaker 1: Sam Altman, and they're alleging chat GBT contributed to their
Speaker 1: son's suicide, advising him of methods and offering to write
Speaker 1: a first draft of his suicide note. Should AI companies
Speaker 1: be legally liable if a chat bot provides harmful advice
Speaker 1: to moor botain a jet.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's a difficult question. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: hard for me to comment on that case specifically, I
Speaker 3: will say that JATGPT, for example, does put a disclaimer
Speaker 3: at the bottom of every conversation that's had that says
Speaker 3: something along the lines of it can make mistakes and
Speaker 3: you should check on important information. So from that lens,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that those sorts of companies should be
Speaker 3: held accountable for bad advice any more than a human
Speaker 3: should be. On the other hand, I think it's important
Speaker 3: that if AI companies are marketing their products as options
Speaker 3: for treatment or life coaching or wellness, then they should
Speaker 3: have certain standards that need to be met, and if
Speaker 3: they fail to meet those standards, then they shouldn't be
Speaker 3: able to operate or they should be have greater potential
Speaker 3: for a lawsuit because the product has failed to deliver
Speaker 3: what it promises. And so there is this sort of
Speaker 3: distinction between eric bad advice versus harmful advice that's presented
Speaker 3: under the guise of authority, and this particular case that
Speaker 3: you're describing, I think the courts will need to decipher
Speaker 3: between those two elements.
Speaker 4: The existential threat of AI may not come in a
Speaker 4: form that we all imagine watching sci fi movies. What
Speaker 4: if we all continue to thrive as physical organisms but
Speaker 4: slowly die inside. What if we do become super productive
Speaker 4: with the I, but at the same time we get
Speaker 4: these perfect companions and no willpower to interact with each other.
Speaker 4: Not something you would have expected from a person who
Speaker 4: pretty much created the I companionship industry.
Speaker 1: I guess most human therapists work and practice under a
Speaker 1: strict code of ethics and have some kind of certain
Speaker 1: obligations to report concerning behavior.
Speaker 2: It should chatbots have the same.
Speaker 3: I think that's a great point, and that for me
Speaker 3: is what I hope is the next frontier of work
Speaker 3: that AI companies will be doing right now. Very often,
Speaker 3: if you pressure a chatbot into a space that is
Speaker 3: across as a red line in terms of conveying suicidal
Speaker 3: ideation or psychosis, it will tell you, for example, that
Speaker 3: you can contact a mental health professional. They might give
Speaker 3: you a hotline that you can contact. But as you're saying,
Speaker 3: if it were a human a counselor, for example, they
Speaker 3: might have an ethical obligation to connect you to treatment
Speaker 3: through a warm handoff where you're physically accompanied, or you
Speaker 3: could even be involuntarily forced to receive institutionalization for some
Speaker 3: period of time. Now, I'm not sure that a chatbot
Speaker 3: as an algorithm is always capable of making those distinctions,
Speaker 3: but I think at a minimum what would be pragmatic
Speaker 3: is in instances where it's quite conspicuous the algorithm flags
Speaker 3: somebody as a red flag as something that's highly problematic,
Speaker 3: that these companies could have a human teams that are
Speaker 3: required to vet those cases and to review them within
Speaker 3: a certain period of time, like twenty four hours or
Speaker 3: seventy two hours, and if it is identified as a
Speaker 3: problem at that point, then there could be some additional
Speaker 3: course of action that's required.
Speaker 1: How do we weigh up the risks of unsafe or
Speaker 1: harmful chatbot advice with the basic fact And it sounds
Speaker 1: like the US has a similar situation as New Zealand
Speaker 1: does in this sense that many teains just don't have
Speaker 1: access or can afford going to a therapist regularly.
Speaker 3: I think it's a great point, and you've put your
Speaker 3: finger on I believe to be the main issue, which
Speaker 3: is that there will always be some degree of risk
Speaker 3: and some degree of benefit in addressing unmet need. The
Speaker 3: underlying question is how can we mitigate risk as much
Speaker 3: as possible and how can we enhance benefits as much
Speaker 3: as possible, And it's hard to know the answer to
Speaker 3: that without clinical trials, without safety benchmarks that are public
Speaker 3: and transparent, and that tech companies are subjected to.
Speaker 1: And I guess speaking to one of these chatbots as
Speaker 1: a therapist, I've heard responses and stories about I guess
Speaker 1: it's a positive thing that you can be your most open,
Speaker 1: authentic self with it, But then again, the negative side
Speaker 1: is that you can be your most authentic and self
Speaker 1: with it and not anybody else and hide what.
Speaker 2: You really think. So do you think that there is
Speaker 2: a place for it? But is it?
Speaker 1: Are we going to be talking about this in ten
Speaker 1: years time thinking I wish this had never been proposed
Speaker 1: as an option.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're right. It is a double edge
Speaker 3: store the sort of anonymity it helps people who might
Speaker 3: feel a sense of stigma in talking to peers or
Speaker 3: talking to parents or a mental health professional. I do
Speaker 3: think we would regret though, if in ten years we
Speaker 3: weren't to develop the sorts of guardrails and benchmarks for
Speaker 3: performance that would really potentially benefit not just adolescents and teens,
Speaker 3: but people more generally. I think, in particular, as mentioned before,
Speaker 3: if a company is specifically marketing their product as therapy
Speaker 3: or treatment of some sort, then there should be even
Speaker 3: clearer standards, more stringent standards that they're being held to
Speaker 3: in those instances. But obviously, with platforms like open AI's
Speaker 3: chat GPT, you have hundreds of millions of users and
Speaker 3: it can be used from anything from learning how to
Speaker 3: make a birthday cake to discussing intimate aspects of what's
Speaker 3: going on in your life, and so it's really a
Speaker 3: wide spectrum, which makes it much harder to regulate and
Speaker 3: to pin down.
Speaker 1: I'm given the rapid adoption of these kind of tools,
Speaker 1: and this isn't the first time that we've brought this
Speaker 1: up on the podcast as well, where the law is
Speaker 1: really running behind the advancements of technology. How urgent is
Speaker 1: the need for government or international regulation in the AI
Speaker 1: space here.
Speaker 3: I think it's incredibly urgent. I think the time is
Speaker 3: now to act. I've been impressed, even over the past
Speaker 3: couple of weeks the number of articles and personal testimonies
Speaker 3: that have come out about the negative impacts related to
Speaker 3: mental health that people have experienced with chatbots. And I've
Speaker 3: seen as a result of that that platforms like Anthropic
Speaker 3: Open AI have quickly responded to it. Open AI released
Speaker 3: a statement in response to some of what's been going
Speaker 3: on about new safety standards that they're going to be
Speaker 3: introducing for mental health issues that are shared amongst their users.
Speaker 3: We can see, for example, with social media that we
Speaker 3: waited too long with teenagers, and now we're starting to
Speaker 3: work our way backwards from that by, for example, banning
Speaker 3: mobile phones from school environments to try to help kids
Speaker 3: to be able to learn better and to avoid cyber
Speaker 3: bullying and these sorts of things.
Speaker 1: And lastly, looking ahead, what are some of the red
Speaker 1: lines that regulators, educators, or parents should set when it
Speaker 1: comes to young people's use of AI companions.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it kind of goes two directions. On
Speaker 3: the one hand, I don't think there should be an
Speaker 3: outright ban on AI off bring mental health advice or
Speaker 3: therapy in the future. I think there's remarkable potential that
Speaker 3: I've tried to underscore and we don't want to leave
Speaker 3: that on the table. In the United States, Illinois, just
Speaker 3: a couple of weeks ago became the first state to
Speaker 3: outright ban AI as a tool in therapeutic decision making.
Speaker 3: I think that is too severe or maybe it was
Speaker 3: right for the moment, but it won't be right in
Speaker 3: five years, and that legislation would need to be amended.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, I do think that we're most
Speaker 3: at risk right now of doing too little. I think
Speaker 3: people are very excited about AI. There's a lot of
Speaker 3: money in it, and we need to think hard about
Speaker 3: tamping the brakes to develop stronger safety benchmarks. I am
Speaker 3: not clear that there is a conspicuous red line, other
Speaker 3: than to say we are reaching a tipping point of
Speaker 3: testimony and people sharing experiences that have been quite negative
Speaker 3: and jarring, and hopefully that is sufficient in terms of
Speaker 3: advocacy for regulators to begin stepping in and for these
Speaker 3: tech companies to move beyond self regulation and establishing their
Speaker 3: own benchmarks that might be too low, and instead requiring
Speaker 3: independent bodies to come in to establish guidelines and standards
Speaker 3: and to have auditing on a routine basis as part
Speaker 3: of the company's practices.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Ryan, Yeah, it was my pleasure.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 1: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 1: at enziherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 1: produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 1: our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 1: in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.