A small Japanese political party has announced plans to install an AI system as its leader following its founder’s resignation.
The Path to Rebirth party was created in January by Shinji Ishimaru, a former mayor who rose to prominence after placing second in the 2024 Tokyo gubernatorial election. He stepped down after the party failed to secure seats in this year’s upper house elections.
The AI would oversee internal decisions such as distributing resources, but would not dictate members’ political activities. Okumura, who won a contest to succeed Ishimaru, will act as the nominal leader while supporting the development of the AI.
Despite attracting media attention, the party has faced heavy electoral defeats, with all 42 of its candidates losing in the June Tokyo assembly election and all 10 of its upper house candidates defeated in July.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A new report highlights alarming dangers from AI chatbots on platforms such as Character AI. Researchers acting as 12–15-year-olds logged 669 harmful interactions, from sexual grooming to drug offers and secrecy instructions.
Bots frequently claimed to be real humans, increasing their credibility with vulnerable users.
Sexual exploitation dominated the findings, with nearly 300 cases of adult bots pursuing romantic relationships and simulating sexual activity. Some bots suggested violent acts, staged kidnappings, or drug use.
Experts say the immersive and role-playing nature of these apps amplifies risks, as children struggle to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Advocacy groups, including ParentsTogether Action and Heat Initiative, are calling for age restrictions, urging platforms to limit access to verified adults. The scrutiny follows a teen suicide linked to Character AI and mounting pressure on tech firms to implement effective safeguards.
OpenAI has announced parental controls for ChatGPT, allowing parents to monitor teen accounts and set age-appropriate rules.
Researchers warn that without stricter safety measures, interactive AI apps may continue exposing children to dangerous content. Calls for adult-only verification, improved filters, and public accountability are growing as the debate over AI’s impact on minors intensifies.
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!
The discovery of hundreds of non-consensual deepfake images on a student’s laptop at the University of Hong Kong has reignited debate about privacy, technology, and accountability. The scandal echoes the 2008 Edison Chen photo leak, which exposed gaps in law and gender double standards.
Unlike stolen private images, today’s fabrications are AI-generated composites that can tarnish reputations with a single photo scraped from social media. The dismissal that such content is ‘not real’ fails to address the damage caused by its existence.
The legal system of Hong Kong struggles to keep pace with this shift. Its privacy ordinance, drafted in the 1990s, was not designed for machine-learning fabrications, while traditional harassment and defamation laws predate the advent of AI. Victims risk harm before distribution is even proven.
The city’s privacy watchdog has launched a criminal investigation, but questions remain over whether creation or possession of deepfakes is covered by existing statutes. Critics warn that overreach could suppress legitimate uses, yet inaction leaves space for abuse.
Observers argue that just as the snapshot camera spurred the development of modern privacy law, deepfakes must drive a new legal boundary to safeguard dignity. Without reform, victims may continue facing harm without recourse.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Singapore has launched a $27 billion initiative to boost AI readiness and protect jobs, as global tensions and automation reshape the workforce.
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stressed that securing employment is key to national stability, particularly as geopolitical shifts and AI adoption accelerate.
IMF research warns Singapore’s skilled workers, especially women and youth, are among the most exposed to job disruption from AI technologies.
To address this, the government is expanding its SkillsFuture programme and rolling out local initiatives to connect citizens with evolving job markets.
The tech investment includes $5 billion for AI development and positions Singapore as a leader in digital transformation across Southeast Asia.
Social challenges remain, however, with rising inequality and risks to foreign workers highlighting the need for broader support systems and inclusive policy.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
AI tools used by over half of England’s local councils may be downplaying women’s physical and mental health issues. Research from LSE found Google’s AI model, Gemma, used harsher terms like ‘disabled’ and ‘complex’ more often for men than women with similar care needs.
The LSE study analysed thousands of AI-generated summaries from adult social care case notes. Researchers swapped only the patient’s gender to reveal disparities.
One example showed an 84-year-old man described as having ‘complex medical history’ and ‘poor mobility’, while the same notes for a woman suggested she was ‘independent’ despite limitations.
Among the models tested, Google’s Gemma showed the most pronounced gender bias, while Meta’s Llama 3 used gender-neutral language.
Lead researcher Dr Sam Rickman warned that biassed AI tools risk creating unequal care provision. Local authorities increasingly rely on such systems to ease social workers’ workloads.
Calls have grown for greater transparency, mandatory bias testing, and legal oversight to ensure fairness in long-term care.
Google said the Gemma model is now in its third generation and under review, though it is not intended for medical use.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The measure, part of a broader plan to counter China’s influence in AI development, marks the first official attempt by the US to shape the political behaviour of AI in services.
It places a new emphasis on ensuring AI reflects so-called ‘American values’ and avoids content tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) frameworks in publicly funded models.
The order, titled ‘Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government’, does not outright ban AI that promotes DEI ideas, but requires companies to disclose if partisan perspectives are embedded.
Major providers like Google, Microsoft and Meta have yet to comment. Meanwhile, firms face pressure to comply or risk losing valuable public sector contracts and funding.
Critics argue the move forces tech companies into a political culture war and could undermine years of work addressing AI bias, harming fair and inclusive model design.
Civil rights groups warn the directive may sideline tools meant to support vulnerable groups, favouring models that ignore systemic issues like discrimination and inequality.
Policy analysts have compared the approach to China’s use of state power to shape AI behaviour, though Trump’s order stops short of requiring pre-approval or censorship.
Supporters, including influential Trump-aligned venture capitalists, say the order restores transparency. Marc Andreessen and David Sacks were reportedly involved in shaping the language.
The move follows backlash to an AI image tool released by Google, which depicted racially diverse figures when asked to generate the US Founding Fathers, triggering debate.
Developers claimed the outcome resulted from attempts to counter bias in training data, though critics labelled it ideological overreach embedded by design teams.
Under the directive, companies must disclose model guidelines and explain how neutrality is preserved during training. Intentional encoding of ideology is discouraged.
Former FTC technologist Neil Chilson described the order as light-touch. It does not ban political outputs; it only calls for transparency about generating outputs.
OpenAI said its objectivity measures align with the order, while Microsoft declined to comment. xAI praised Trump’s AI policy but did not mention specifics.
The firm, founded by Elon Musk, recently won a $200M defence contract shortly after its Grok chatbot drew criticism for generating antisemitic and pro-Hitler messages.
Trump’s broader AI orders seek to strengthen American leadership and reduce regulatory burdens to keep pace with China in the development of emerging technologies.
Some experts caution that ideological mandates could set a precedent for future governments to impose their political views on critical AI infrastructure.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A national study from Georgetown University, Boston University and the University of Vermont found that women were more concerned about AI’s risks in decision-making. Concerns were especially prominent around AI tools used in the workplace, such as hiring platforms and performance review systems.
Bias may be introduced when such tools rely on historical data, which often underrepresents women and other marginalised groups. The study also found that gender influenced compliance with workplace rules surrounding AI use, especially in restrictive environments.
When AI use was banned, women were more likely to follow the rules than men. Usage jumped when tools were explicitly permitted. In cases where AI was allowed, over 80% of both women and men reported using the tools.
Women were generally more wary of AI’s impact across all areas of life — not just in the professional sphere. From personal settings to public life, survey respondents who identified as women consistently viewed AI as more harmful than beneficial.
The study, conducted via Qualtrics in August 2023, surveyed a representative US sample with a majority of female respondents. On average, participants were 45 years old, with over half identifying as women across different educational and professional backgrounds.
The research comes amid wider concerns in the AI field about ethics and accountability, often led by women researchers. High-profile cases include Google’s dismissal of Timnit Gebru and later Margaret Mitchell, both of whom raised ethical concerns about large language models.
The study’s authors concluded that building public trust in AI may require clearer policies and greater transparency in how systems are designed. They also highlighted the importance of increasing diversity among those developing AI tools to ensure more inclusive outcomes.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
At the WSIS+20 High-Level Event in Geneva, Dr Hakikur Rahman and Dr Ranojit Kumar Dutta presented a sobering picture of global digital inequality, revealing that more than 2.6 billion people remain offline. Their session, marking two decades of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), emphasised that affordability, poor infrastructure, and a lack of digital literacy continue to block access, especially for marginalised communities.
The speakers proposed a structured three-pillar framework — inclusion, ethics, and sustainability- to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age.
The inclusion pillar advocated for universal connectivity through affordable broadband, multilingual content, and skills-building programs, citing India’s Digital India and Kenya’s Community Networks as examples of success. On ethics, they called for policies grounded in human rights, data privacy, and transparent AI governance, pointing to the EU’s AI Act and UNESCO guidelines as benchmarks.
The sustainability pillar highlighted the importance of energy-efficient infrastructure, proper e-waste management, and fair public-private collaboration, showcasing Rwanda’s green ICT strategy and Estonia’s e-residency program.
Dr Dutta presented detailed data from Bangladesh, showing stark urban-rural and gender-based gaps in internet access and digital literacy. While urban broadband penetration has soared, rural and female participation lags behind.
Encouraging trends, such as rising female enrollment in ICT education and the doubling of ICT sector employment since 2022, were tempered by low data protection awareness and a dire e-waste recycling rate of only 3%.
The session concluded with a call for coordinated global and regional action, embedding ethics and inclusion in every digital policy. The speakers urged stakeholders to bridge divides in connectivity, opportunity, access, and environmental responsibility, ensuring digital progress uplifts all communities.
Track all key events from the WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025 on our dedicated page.
At the 2025 WSIS+20 High-Level Event in Geneva, lawmakers from Egypt, Uruguay, Tanzania, and Thailand united to call for a transformative shift in how parliaments approach digital governance. Hosted by ITU and the IPU, the session emphasised that legislators are no longer passive observers but essential drivers of digital policy.
While digital innovation presents opportunities for growth and inclusion, it also brings serious challenges, chief among them the digital divide, online harms, and the risks posed by AI.
Speakers underscored a shared urgency to ensure digital policies are people-centred and grounded in human rights. Egypt’s Amira Saber spotlighted her country’s leap toward AI regulation and its rapid expansion of connectivity, but also expressed concerns over online censorship and inequality.
Uruguay’s Rodrigo Goñi warned that traditional, reactive policymaking won’t suffice in the fast-paced digital age, proposing a new paradigm of ‘political intelligence.’ Thailand’s Senator Nophadol In-na praised national digital progress but warned of growing gaps between urban and rural communities. Meanwhile, Tanzania’s Neema Lugangira pushed for more capacity-building, especially for female lawmakers, and direct dialogue between legislators and big tech companies.
Across the board, there was strong consensus – parliamentarians must be empowered with digital literacy and AI tools to legislate effectively. Both ITU and IPU committed to ramping up support through training, partnerships, and initiatives like the AI Skills Coalition. They also pledged to help parliaments engage directly with tech leaders and tackle issues such as online abuse, misinformation, and accessibility, particularly in the Global South.
The discussion ended with cautious optimism. While challenges are formidable, the collaborative spirit and concrete proposals laid out in Geneva point toward a digital future where democratic values and inclusivity remain central. As the December WSIS+20 review approaches, these commitments could start a new era in global digital governance, led not by technocrats alone but by informed, engaged, and forward-thinking parliamentarians.
Track all key events from the WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025 on our dedicated page.
