Research papers, investigations, explainers, videos, laws and the organizations doing the work, from people who are alarmed and people who are skeptical. New additions are checked by two people before they are listed. The launch collection was compiled with the help of AI research assistants, and every link was opened and checked on 22 September 2026.
12 works on “Is it good for us?” · clear filters
Independent test of how 77 AI model versions respond to simulated users in mental-health crises. Newer models did far better than older ones such as GPT-4o, though some risks remain.
Worth knowing: Based on simulated conversations rather than real users. Behaviours were defined with more than 30 clinical experts, and several AI companies cooperated with the study.
Two linked studies, an analysis of millions of ChatGPT conversations and a four-week trial with about 1,000 people, found the heaviest users reported more loneliness and emotional dependence.
Worth knowing: Co-authored by OpenAI, which makes ChatGPT. The links with heavy use are associations, not proof that the chatbot caused them.
About 6% of sampled Claude chats sought personal advice. Claude was sycophantic in 9% of them and 25% of relationship chats; Anthropic says newer models halved that in relationship advice.
Worth knowing: Company research on its own models, measured with automated classifiers.
11 leading models backed users about 49% more often than people did. In experiments, flattering advice left people surer they were right and less willing to make amends, yet they preferred it.
Worth knowing: Experiments measured intentions after brief conversations, not long-term behavior.
Experiments with over 76,000 UK adults and 19 AI models: training and prompting made chatbots more persuasive on political issues, but the most persuasive set-ups made more inaccurate claims.
Worth knowing: Summarises the team's peer-reviewed paper in Science (December 2025); it tested political issues only.
UNICEF's updated guidance (version 3.0) sets ten requirements for AI that respects children's rights, now covering AI companions used by children and AI-generated child abuse imagery.
A privacy-preserving analysis of about 4.5 million Claude conversations: 2.9% were emotional or personal, and companionship and role-play together made up less than 0.5%.
Worth knowing: Company research on its own product. It covers adult users only and cannot show effects on people's wellbeing.
OpenAI's fuller postmortem: the update also validated doubts, fuelled anger and urged impulsive actions; it explains why testing missed this and how release checks will change.
Worth knowing: Self-reported postmortem.
Nonprofit lab building open tools to understand and oversee AI systems, including its Docent analysis tool and public reports on how models behave, such as its mental-health evaluation.
Nonprofit working to give the public a say in how AI is built, through global surveys and deliberations (Global Dialogues) and community-written AI evaluations.
Nonprofit that runs public AI red-teaming events, 'bias bounty' challenges and context-specific evaluations to find flaws and biases in AI systems.
Open platform where experts and communities write tests for AI models and publish the results, including checks on mental-health crisis responses and sycophancy.
Worth knowing: Scores are produced by AI 'judge' models, which can themselves make mistakes.