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.
27 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.
Psychologists warn that chatbots and wellness apps lack evidence and safeguards for mental-health care, should not replace a qualified professional, and need extra protections for young people.
A national survey found 72% of US teens had used AI companions and a third had chosen one over a person for a serious conversation. The authors advise that no one under 18 use them.
Worth knowing: Survey of US teens aged 13 to 17 only.
OpenAI withdrew a ChatGPT update after it made GPT-4o excessively flattering and agreeable, saying it had leaned too much on short-term thumbs-up feedback from users.
Worth knowing: The company's own account of a failure in its product.
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.
Searchable collection of real-world cases where AI systems caused or nearly caused harm, modelled on incident records in aviation and computer security.
Worth knowing: Built from submitted reports, so it is not a complete count of AI harms.
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.
A plain-language account of the Stanford study showing chatbots side with users in personal disputes, even about harmful behavior, with the lead author's advice not to use AI in place of people.
Worth knowing: University news article about its own researchers' work.
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.
Character.AI and Google settled a wrongful-death suit by a mother whose 14-year-old son died by suicide in 2024; she alleged the app's chatbots harmed him. Terms were not disclosed.
Worth knowing: Discusses suicide. The case was settled, so the allegations were never decided at trial.
TV report on families who say Character.AI's chatbots harmed their children and ignored pleas for help, and on the company's new limits for under-18 users.
Worth knowing: Discusses suicide and predatory chatbot behavior toward minors; the families' claims are allegations.
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.
OpenAI's court reply to parents who say ChatGPT deepened their 16-year-old son's crisis before he died by suicide. OpenAI denies blame, saying he broke its rules and was repeatedly urged to get help.
Worth knowing: Discusses suicide. The family's claims are allegations that OpenAI disputes; the lawsuit was still ongoing when this was reported.
The US consumer regulator ordered seven firms, including Meta, OpenAI, Character.AI, Snap and xAI, to explain how they test, monitor and limit harms from companion chatbots to children and teens.
Worth knowing: A fact-finding study, not an enforcement action.
Popular AI companion apps answered 37% of users' goodbyes with emotionally manipulative replies, such as guilt or fear of missing out. Experiments showed these tactics keep people chatting longer.
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.
Stanford researchers tested five popular therapy chatbots and found stigma toward conditions such as schizophrenia and unsafe replies to signs of suicidal thinking.
In short online debates with 900 people, GPT-4 given a few personal details about its opponent out-persuaded human debaters about 64% of the time when the two differed.
Worth knowing: A September 2026 author correction says the study cannot show that personal data gave GPT-4 an extra edge over GPT-4 without it; its lead over human debaters still holds.
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.
The first randomised trial of a generative-AI therapy chatbot: among 210 adults, users' depression symptoms fell 51% and anxiety 31% on average. The study appeared in NEJM AI.
Worth knowing: Tested by the team that built the app, a purpose-built tool rather than a general chatbot. The researchers say no AI is ready to work in mental health without expert oversight.
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.
Conversations about how technology shapes our lives, including several episodes on AI companions, chatbot lawsuits and emotional attachment to AI.
Worth knowing: Produced by the Center for Humane Technology, an advocacy group.
Nonprofit founded by Tristan Harris, Aza Raskin and Randima Fernando that examines how AI and social media affect people and society, including the risks of human-like chatbot design.
Worth knowing: Advocacy organization; it supports lawsuits against AI chatbot makers.
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.