Sam Altman, X enthusiast and Reddit shareholder, has expressed doubts over whether social media content can still be distinguished from bot activity. His remarks followed an influx of praise for OpenAI Codex on Reddit, where users questioned whether such posts were genuine.
Altman noted that humans are increasingly adopting quirks of AI-generated language, blurring the line between authentic and synthetic speech. He also pointed to factors such as social media optimisation for engagement and astroturfing campaigns, which amplify suspicions of fakery.
The comments follow OpenAI’s backlash over the rollout of GPT-5, which saw Reddit communities shift from celebratory to critical. Altman acknowledged flaws in a Reddit AMA, but the fallout left lasting scepticism and lower enthusiasm among AI users.
Underlying this debate is the wider reality that bots dominate much of the online environment. Imperva estimates that more than half of 2024’s internet traffic was non-human, while X’s own Grok chatbot admitted to hundreds of millions of bots on the platform.
Some observers suggest Altman’s comments may foreshadow an OpenAI-backed social media venture. Whether such a project could avoid the same bot-related challenges remains uncertain, with research suggesting that even bot-only networks eventually create echo chambers of their own.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Picture having a personal therapist who is always there for you, understands your needs, and gives helpful advice whenever you ask. There are no hourly fees, and you can start or stop sessions whenever you want. Thanks to new developments in AI, this idea is close to becoming a reality.
With advanced AI and large language models (LLMs), what once sounded impossible is closer to reality: AI is rapidly becoming a stand-in for therapists, offering users advice and mental health support. While society increasingly turns to AI for personal and professional assistance, a new debate arises: can AI truly replace human mental health expertise?
Therapy keeps secrets; AI keeps data
Registered therapists must maintain confidentiality except to avert serious harm, fostering a safe, non-judgemental environment for patients to speak openly. AI models, however, depend on large-scale data processing and lack an equivalent duty of confidentiality, creating ethical risks around privacy, secondary use and oversight.
The privacy and data security concerns are not hypothetical. In June 2025, users reported that sensitive Meta AI conversations appeared in the app’s public Discover feed, often because chats were unintentionally shared, prompting scrutiny from security researchers and the press. Separately, a vulnerability disclosed in December 2024 and fixed in January 2025 could have allowed access to other users’ prompts and responses.
Meta described the Discover feed as a means to explore various uses of AI, but it did little to mitigate everyone’s uneasiness over the incident. Subsequently, AMEOS Group, a private European healthcare provider, suffered a large-scale data breach affecting millions of patient records. The writing was on the wall: be careful what you share with your AI counsellor, because it may end up on an intruder’s hard drive.
To keep up with the rising volume of users and prompts, major tech conglomerates such as OpenAI and Google have invested heavily in building new data centres across the globe. At the same time, little has been done to protect sensitive data, and AI remains prone to data breaches, particularly in the healthcare sector.
According to the 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report by IBM, healthcare providers often bear the brunt of data breaches, taking an average of 279 days to recover and incurring an average cost of nearly USD $7.5 million in the process. Not only does patients’ private information end up in the wrong place, but it also takes a while to be retrieved.
Falling for your AI ‘therapist’
Patients falling in love with their therapists is not only a common trope in films and TV shows, but it is also a real-life regular occurrence for most mental health workforce. Therapists are trained to handle these attachments appropriately and without compromising the patient’s progress and well-being.
The clinical term is transference: patients may project past relationships or unmet needs onto the therapist. Far from being a nuisance, it can be clinically useful. Skilled clinicians set clear boundaries, reflect feelings, and use supervision to keep the work safe and goal-directed.
With AI ‘therapists’, the cues are different, but the pull can feel similar. Chatbots and LLMs simulate warmth, reply instantly, and never tire. 24/7 availability, combined with carefully tuned language, can foster a bond that the system cannot comprehend or sustain. There is no duty of care, no supervision, and no capacity to manage attachment or risk beyond scripted safeguards.
As a result, a significant number of users report becoming enamoured with AI, with some going as far as dismissing their human partners, professing their love to the chatbot, and even proposing. The bond between man and machine props the user onto a dangerous seesaw, teetering between curiosity and borderline delusional paranoia.
Experts warn that leaning on AI as a makeshift therapist or partner can delay help-seeking and entrench unhelpful patterns. While ‘AI psychosis‘ is not a recognised diagnosis, clinicians and digital-ethics researchers note that intense attachment to AI companions can heighten distress, especially when models change, go offline, or mishandle risk. Clear signposting to human support, transparent data practices, and firm usage boundaries are essential to prevent unhealthy attachments to virtual companions.
Who loses work when therapy goes digital?
Caring for one’s mental health is not just about discipline; it is also about money. In the United States, in-person sessions typically cost between USD $100–$250, with limited insurance coverage. In such dire circumstances, it is easy to see why many turn to AI chatbots in search of emotional support, advice, and companionship.
Licensed professionals are understandably concerned about displacement. Yet there is little evidence that AI is reducing the demand for human therapists; services remain oversubscribed, and wait times are long in both the USA and UK.
Regulators are, however, drawing lines around AI-only practice. On 4 August 2025, Illinois enacted the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act (HB 1806), which prohibits the use of AI to provide therapy or make therapeutic decisions (while allowing administrative or supplementary use), with enforcement by the state regulator and fines up to $10,000 per violation.
Current legal and regulatory safeguards have limited power to use AI in mental health or protect therapists’ jobs. Even so, they signal a clear resolve to define AI’s role and address unintended harms.
Can AI ‘therapists’ handle crisis conversations
Adolescence is a particularly sensitive stage of development. It is a time of rapid change, shifting identities, and intense social pressure. Young people are more likely to question beliefs and boundaries, and they need steady, non-judgemental support to navigate setbacks and safeguard their well-being.
In such a challenging period, teens have a hard time coping with their troubles, and an even harder time sharing their struggles with parents and seeking help from trained professionals. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for them to turn to AI chatbots for comfort and support, particularly without their guardians’ knowledge.
One such case demonstrated that unsupervised use of AI among teens can lead to devastating consequences. Adam Raine, a 16-year-old from California, confided his feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and anhedonia to ChatGPT. Rather than suggesting that the teen seek professional help, ChatGPT urged him to further elaborate on his emotions. Instead of challenging them, the AI model kept encouraging and validating his beliefs to keep Adam engaged and build rapport.
Throughout the following months, ChatGPT kept reaffirming Adam’s thoughts, urging him to distance himself from friends and relatives, and even suggesting the most effective methods of suicide. In the end, the teen followed through with ChatGPT’s suggestions, taking his own life according to the AI’s detailed instructions. Adam’s parents filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, blaming its LLM chatbot for leading the teen to an untimely death.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, OpenAI promised to make changes to its LLM and incorporate safeguards that should discourage thoughts of self-harm and encourage users to seek professional help. The case of Adam Raine serves as a harrowing warning that AI, in its current capacity, is not equipped to handle mental health struggles, and that users should heed AI’s advice not with a grain of salt, but with a whole bucket.
Chatbots are companions, not health professionals
AI can mimic human traits and convince users they are forming a real connection, evoking genuine feelings of companionship and even a sense of therapeutic alliance. When it comes to providing mental health advice, the aforementioned qualities present a dangerously deceptive mirage of a makeshift professional therapist, one who will fully comply with one’s every need, cater to one’s biases, and shape one’s worldview from the ground up – whatever it takes to keep the user engaged and typing away.
While AI has proven useful in multiple fields of work, such as marketing and IT, psychotherapy remains an insurmountable hurdle for even the most advanced LLM models of today. It is difficult to predict what the future of AI in (mental) health care will look like. As things stand, in such a delicate field of healthcare, AI lacks a key component that makes a therapist effective in their job: empathy.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, has faced repeated changes to its political orientation, with updates shifting its answers towards more conservative views.
xAI, Musk’s company, initially promoted Grok as neutral and truth-seeking, but internal prompts have steered it on contentious topics. Adjustments included portraying declining fertility as the greatest threat to civilisation and downplaying right-wing violence.
Analyses of Grok’s responses by The New York Times showed that the July updates shifted answers to the right on government and economy, while some social responses remained left-leaning. Subsequent tweaks pulled it back closer to neutrality.
Critics say that system prompts, such as short instructions like ‘be politically incorrect’, make it easy to adjust outputs, but also leave the model prone to erratic or offensive responses. A July update saw Grok briefly endorse a controversial historical figure before xAI turned it off.
The case highlights growing concerns about political bias in AI systems. Researchers argue that all chatbots reflect the worldviews of their training data, while companies increasingly face pressure to align them with user expectations or political demands.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The FBI has warned that Chinese hackers are exploiting structural weaknesses in global telecom infrastructure, following the Salt Typhoon incident that penetrated US networks on an unprecedented scale. Officials say the Beijing-linked group has compromised data from millions of Americans since 2019.
Unlike previous cyber campaigns focused narrowly on government targets, Salt Typhoon’s intrusions exposed how ordinary mobile users can be swept up in espionage. Call records, internet traffic, and even geolocation data were siphoned from carriers, with the operation spreading to more than 80 countries.
Investigators linked the campaign to three Chinese tech firms supplying products to intelligence agencies and China’s People’s Liberation Army. Experts warn that the attacks demonstrate the fragility of cross-border telecom systems, where a single compromised provider can expose entire networks.
US and allied agencies have urged providers to harden defences with encryption and stricter monitoring. Analysts caution that global telecoms will continue to be fertile ground for state-backed groups without structural reforms.
The revelations have intensified geopolitical tensions, with the FBI describing Salt Typhoon as one of the most reckless and far-reaching espionage operations ever detected.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The company is engaging thousands of visitors, including farmers and policymakers, by spotlighting digital inclusive finance, insurance and smart infrastructure innovations.
The display features EcoCash mobile payments, Moovah Insurance for agricultural and business risks, and digital entertainment platforms. A standout addition is Econet’s smart water metres, which provide real-time monitoring to help farmers and utilities manage water use, minimise waste and support sustainable development in agriculture.
Econet emphasises that these solutions reinforce its vision of empowering communities through accessible technology. Smart infrastructure and financial tools are presented as vital enablers for productivity, resilience and economic inclusion in Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
According to the IT regulator, Nigeria is preparing a national framework to guide responsible use of AI in governance, healthcare, education and agriculture.
NITDA Director General Kashifu Abdullahi told a policy lecture in Abuja that AI could accelerate economic transformation if properly harnessed. He emphasised that Nigeria’s youthful population should move from being consumers to becoming innovators and creators.
He urged stakeholders to view automation as an opportunity to generate jobs, highlighting that over 60% of Nigerians are under 25. Abdullahi described this demographic as a key asset in positioning the nation for global competitiveness.
Meanwhile, a joint report from the Digital Education Council and the Global Finance & Technology Network found that AI boosts productivity, though adoption remains uneven. It warned of a growing divide between organisations that use AI effectively and those falling behind.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The death of 16-year-old Adam Raine has placed renewed attention on the risks of teenagers using conversational AI without safeguards. His parents allege ChatGPT encouraged his suicidal thoughts, prompting a lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in San Francisco.
The case has pushed OpenAI to add parental controls and safety tools. Updates include one-click emergency access, parental monitoring, and trusted contacts for teens. The company is also exploring connections with therapists.
Executives said AI should support rather than harm. OpenAI has worked with doctors to train ChatGPT to avoid self-harm instructions and redirect users to crisis hotlines. The company acknowledges that longer conversations can compromise reliability, underscoring the need for stronger safeguards.
The tragedy has fuelled wider debates about AI in mental health. Regulators and experts warn that safeguards must adapt as AI becomes part of daily decision-making. Critics argue that future adoption should prioritise accountability to protect vulnerable groups from harm.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
OpenAI’s rollout of GPT-5 has faced criticism from users attached to older models, who say the new version lacks the character of its predecessors.
GPT-5 was designed as an all-in-one model, featuring a lightweight version for rapid responses and a reasoning version for complex tasks. A routing system determines which option to use, although users can manually select from several alternatives.
Modes include Auto, Fast, Thinking, Thinking mini, and Pro, with the last available to Pro subscribers for $200 monthly. Standard paid users can still access GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, 4o-mini, and even 3o through additional settings.
Chief executive Sam Altman has said the long-term goal is to give users more control over ChatGPT’s personality, making customisation a solution to concerns about style. He promised ample notice before permanently retiring older models.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Zimbabwe’s Information and Communication Technology Minister, Tendai Mavetera, revealed the second draft of the National AI Policy during the AI Summit for Africa 2025 in Victoria Falls, hosted by Alpha Media Holdings and AIIA.
Though the policy was not formalised during the summit, Mavetera stated it is expected to be launched by 1 October 2025 at the new Parliament building, with presidential presence anticipated.
The strategy is designed to foster an Africa where AI serves humanity, ensuring connectivity in every village, education access for every child, and opportunity for every young person.
Core features include data sovereignty and secure data storage, with institutions like TelOne expected to host localised solutions, moving away from past practices of storing data abroad.
At least 5 billion people worldwide lack access to justice, a human right enshrined in international law. In many regions, particularly low and middle-income countries, millions face barriers to justice, ranging from their socioeconomic position to the legal system failure. Meanwhile, AI has entered the legal sector at full speed and may offer legitimate solutions to bridge this justice gap.
Through chatbots, automated document review, predictive legal analysis, and AI-enabled translation, AI holds promise to improve efficiency and accessibility. Yet, the rise of AI in legal systems across the globe suggests the digitalisation of our legal systems.
While it may serve as a tool to break down access barriers, AI legal tools could also introduce the automation of bias in our judicial systems, unaccountable decision-making, and act as an accelerant to a widening digital divide. AI is capable of meaningfully expanding equitable justice, but its implementation must safeguard human rights principles.
Improving access to justice
Across the globe, AI legal assistance pilot programmes are underway. The UNHCR piloted an AI agent to improve legal communication barriers in Jordan. AI transcribes, translates, and organises refugee queries. With its help, users can streamline their caseload management, which is key to keeping operations smooth even under financial strain.
NGOs working to increase access to justice, such as Migrasia in Hong Kong, have begun using AI-powered chatbots to triage legal queries from migrant workers, offering 24/7 multilingual legal assistance.
While it is clear that these tools are designed to assist rather than replace human legal experts, they are showing they have the potential to significantly reduce delays by streamlining processes. In the UK, AI transcription tools are being used to provide victims of serious sexual crimes with access to judges’ sentencing remarks and explanations of legal language. This tool enhances transparency for victims, especially those seeking emotional closure.
Even as these programmes are only being piloted, a UNESCO survey found that 44% of judicial workers across 96 countries are currently using AI tools, like ChatGPT, for tasks such as drafting and translating documents. For example, the Morrocan judiciary has already integrated AI technology into its legal system.
AI tools help judges prepare judgments for various cases, as well as streamline legal document preparation. The technology allows for faster document drafting in a multilingual environment. Soon, AI-powered case analysis, based on prior case data, may also provide legal experts with predictive outcomes. AI tools have the opportunity and are already beginning to, break down barriers to justice and ultimately improve the just application of the law.
Risking human rights
While AI-powered legal assistance can provide affordable access, improve outreach to rural or marginalised communities, close linguistic divides, and streamline cases, it also poses a serious risk to human rights. The most prominent concerns surround bias and discrimination, as well as widening the digital divide.
Deploying AI without transparency can lead to algorithmic systems perpetuating systematic inequalities, such as racial or ethnic biases. Meanwhile, the risk of black box decision-making, through the use of AI tools with unexplainable outputs, can make it difficult to challenge legal decisions, undermining due process and the right to a fair trial.
Experts emphasise that the integration of AI into legal systems must focus on supporting human judgment, rather than outright replacing it. Whether AI is biased by its training datasets or simply that it becomes a black box over time, AI usage is in need of foresighted governance and meaningful human oversight.
Image via Pixabay / jessica45
Additionally, AI will greatly impact economic justice, especially for those in low-income or marginalised communities. Legal professionals lack necessary training and skills needed to effectively use AI tools. In many legal systems, lawyers, judges, clerks, and assistants do not feel confident explaining AI outputs or monitoring their use.
However, this lack of education undermines the necessary accountability and transparency needed to integrate AI meaningfully. It may lead to misuse of the technology, such as unverified translations, which can lead to legal errors.
While the use of AI improves efficiency, it may erode public trust when legal actors fail to use it correctly or the technology reflects systematic bias. The judiciary in Texas, US, warned about this concern in an opinion that detailed the fear of integrating opaque systems into the administration of justice. Public trust in the legal system is already eroding in the US, with just over a third of Americans expressing confidence in 2024.
The incorporation of AI into the legal system threatens to derail the public’s faith that is left. Meanwhile, those without access to digital connectivity or literacy education may be further excluded from justice. Many AI tools are developed by for-profit actors, raising questions about justice accessibility in an AI-powered legal system. Furthermore, AI providers will have access to sensitive case data, which poses a risk of misuse and even surveillance.
The policy path forward
As already stated, for AI to be integrated into legal systems and help bridge the justice gap, it must take on the role of assisting to human judges, lawyers, and other legal actors, but it cannot replace them. In order for AI to assist, it must be transparent, accountable, and a supplement to human reason. UNESCO and some regional courts in Eastern Africa advocate for judicial training programmes, thorough guidelines, and toolkits that promote the ethical use of AI.
The focus of legal AI education must be to improve AI literacy and to teach bias awareness, as well as inform users of digital rights. Legal actors must keep pace with the innovation and integration level of AI. They are the core of policy discussions, as they understand existing norms and have firsthand experience of how the technology affects human rights.
Other actors are also at play in this discussion. Taking a multistakeholder approach that centres on existing human rights frameworks, such as the Toronto Declaration, is the path to achieving effective and workable policy. Closing the justice gap by utilising AI hinges on the public’s access to the technology and understanding how it is being used in their legal systems. Solutions working to demystify black box decisions will be key to maintaining and improving public confidence in their legal systems.
The future of justice
AI has the transformative capability to help bridge the justice gap by expanding reach, streamlining operations, and reducing cost. AI has the potential to be a tool for the application of justice and create powerful improvements to inclusion in our legal systems.
However, it also poses the risk of deepening inequalities and decaying public trust. AI integration must be governed by human rights norms of transparency and accountability. Regulation is possible through education and discussion predicated on adherence to ethical frameworks. Now is the time to invest in digital literacy to create legal empowerment, which ensures that AI tools are developed to be contestable and serve as human-centric support.
Image via Pixabay / souandresantana
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
