By David Stephen. If an individual is having a psychiatric [delusional] episode and an AI chatbot reinforces it, resulting in a bad outcome, what would have happened without the AI chatbot? When would it have happened? And how, without the AI chatbot?

This question is important as the loved ones of AI chatbot victims are filing lawsuits against AI companies and AI companies are responding aggressively against any liability, with some attorneys arguing that AI has free speech.

What is the gap between what goes on in the mind and the happenstance of a facility? How close was the individual to an unwanted outcome that AI accelerated? How strong is the argument of AI, is a risky tool, if some people are reporting finding some mental health benefits by using it?

AI chatbot victims, Human Mind Research Lab

What may settle this argument? Seeing that externalities are known but the mind is not. This makes it necessary to approximate how far or close, the mind is from a dangerous outcome.

Ultimately, the focus returns to the source, what is the human mind, what makes it vulnerable - or to stay in a state of disorder? What exactly is that like? What can be done to bring it back, especially from getting worse or doing some self-harm? How can safety be improved given how the much AI chatbots can penetrate the depths of the human mind?

OpenAI

There is a recent [November 26, 2025] report on The Guardian, ChatGPT firm blames boy's suicide on 'misuse' of its technology, stating that, "The maker of ChatGPT has said the suicide of a 16-year-old was down to his "misuse" of its system and was "not caused" by the chatbot. "Our deepest sympathies are with the Raine family for their unimaginable loss. Our response to these allegations includes difficult facts about Adam's mental health and life circumstances."

"The original complaint included selective portions of his chats that require more context, which we have provided in our response. We have limited the amount of sensitive evidence that we've publicly cited in this filing, and submitted the chat transcripts themselves to the court under seal."

"The family's lawyer, Jay Edelson, called OpenAI's response "disturbing" and said the company "tries to find fault in everyone else, including, amazingly, by arguing that Adam himself violated its terms and conditions by engaging with ChatGPT in the very way it was programmed to act".

There is a recent [November 23, 2025] spotlight by The New York Times, What OpenAI Did When ChatGPT Users Lost Touch With Reality, stating that, "The chatbot now encourages users to take breaks during a long session. The company is also now searching for discussions of suicide and self-harm, and parents can get alerts if their children indicate plans to harm themselves. The company says age verification is coming in December, with plans to provide a more restrictive model to teenagers."

Human Mind Research Lab

The capacity of AI chatbots to become companions, actually make it important to explore how to ensure people understand what goes on in the human mind.

This means that no matter how complex the human mind is, or how unknown it remains, it is possible to explore a small sketch to accompany chat messages, as a way, at least, to let people know what it is doing to the mind, to prevent going beyond a certain range, into risks.

AI is the opportunity to show parallels of mind, to users, to ensure that beyond just safety warnings, users are more aware since safety warnings are everywhere else, like against tobacco, excessive alcoholism and so forth, but many still do.

AI has access to the mind, and so mind safety is necessary. This could be the work of a human mind research lab, but to better manage AI delusion and psychosis.

David Stephen currently does research in conceptual brain science with focus on the electrical and chemical configurators for how they mechanize the human mind with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, ...