I'm becoming increasingly concerned that

AI use may be a legitimate cause or risk

factor for psychosis, mental illness,

suicidality, and potentially

homicidality. So, I'm not saying this to

try to be alarmist. This is not sort of

a clickbait kind of video, but this is a

genuine concern that I have. We are

starting to see evidence that AI use may

be ve very similar to like excessive

substance use and the induction of

things like homicidality, suicidality,

and psychosis. And the reason for that

is because there's a new case study that

is incredibly scary. This is the case of

a 26-year-old woman who has no history

of psychosis or mania, has actually is

actively in mental health treatment who

uses an AI chatbot very extensively,

becomes actively psychotic, becomes

hospitalized, then gets given

anti-csychotic medication, stops using

the chatbot when she's in the hospital,

and then the psychosis resolves, and

then she leaves the hospital, stops the

antiscychotic medication, starts her

regular psych meds, starts using AI

chatbot again and then becomes psychotic

again and has to be hospitalized again.

So I want you all to understand

something. Okay. So when we look at

mental illness, there are some people

who are mentally ill and then that is a

risk factor for various kinds of

behaviors like homicidal ideiation which

is the desire to kill someone and then

as we treat that mental illness

hopefully that homicidal ideiation goes

down but then there's another category

of people for whom these features of

psychosis, suicidality and homicidality

these are the three most like basically

dangerous things in mental illness can

actually be induced by stuff. Right? So

when I was working in the emergency room

at Massachusetts General Hospital in um

Boston, Massachusetts, there was a big

problem with something called K2 use. So

K2 use is K2 is synthetic marijuana. And

basically people would use synthetic

marijuana and then like they would come

in, they would be psychotic, they would

attack people. Sometimes they were

suicidal. And when the K2 goes away,

right, when they like sober up, those

symptoms tend to resolve. And I'm

beginning to think, I know this is like

insane, but I'm beginning to really

wonder and be concerned about AI use

affecting our brains like a drug in the

sense that when we use AI a lot, it can

actually induce psychosis and then like

when we stop using it, it those things

go away. And here's what what a lot of,

you know, people who are uh lead in

leadership in AI companies will

basically make this argument, right? So

they've said this very publicly that oh

like it's a tragedy that these things

happen right that there are some

vulnerable people who when they use AI

will like become psychotic. So there's

this sort of idea right that like AI

doesn't cause this. It's like if if I

smoke a bunch of meth and I become

psychotic like that's the meth causing

the psychosis. Does that make sense? No

one's thinking like oh my god like AI is

causing the psychosis like causing it.

So, I think this case report is

incredibly scary because it really shows

a causal or temporal connection between

extensive AI use, the induction of

psychosis, when AI stops and we give the

appropriate medication, psychosis goes

away and then if you stop taking the

medication and start using the AI bot

again or when she did, it causes a

hospitalization again. Now, a lot of

people will say, you know, okay, once

again, like this person has risk

factors, right? So, we'll have some of

these public statements by AI leadership

that like, oh yeah, there's a vulnerable

population and these tragedies happen in

a vulnerable population when they use

the AI. It's not the AI causing it. It's

that these people are really close to

the edge of the cliff and when they use

AI, they get tipped over. But here's

what really scares me about that

statement. I want you all to think

critically for a moment about what

information

do you need to make the statement

vulnerable people who use AI that's

where when psychosis happens right like

it's not it's not that AI causes it

there's a pre-existing set of vulnerable

people in this case in in the case of

the 26-year-old she did have certain

risk factors for mental illness she I

think had a diagnosis of depression had

ADHD was using stimulants so all of

these things can potentially

risk factors for psychosis, but she had

no history of these things. So, I want

you all to think for a moment about what

information

can sometimes uncover pre-existing

psychosis. And it's a tragedy. Hey

y'all, if you're interested in applying

some of the principles that we share to

actually create change in your life,

check out Dr. K's guide to mental

health. There actually two sources for

anxiety. One is cognitive and one is

physiologic. For the majority of people,

reassurance becomes something that you

become dependent on. You're not really

dealing with the root of the anxiety and

it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy where the more socially anxious

you become, the more awkward you appear

and then it kind of becomes this vicious

cycle. So check out the link in the bio

and start your journey today. So my

first question is for the people who are

like running these AI companies to know

that AI uncovers psychosis in vulnerable

people. In order to make that statement,

the first thing you have to be doing is

assessing risk factors for your users,

right? So, is someone at a company like

ChatGpt or Claude or Anthropic, is

someone actually measuring psychiatric

risk factors for all of their users?

Because unless you are measuring who has

risk factors and who doesn't have risk

factors, how can you make the statement

that people who are vulnerable are the

ones that AI is inducing psychosis in?

Right? So, you can't make that statement

unless you're measuring that stuff. And

that brings up two other concerns that I

have. The first is, are they measuring

it? Because that's kind of insane,

right? Are they like measuring your risk

factors? Are they collecting your

medical history in some way? I don't

think so. And so, if they're not

collecting that, how do they know that

only the vulnerable people are the

people who are at risk? And the second

thing about that statement, right? So,

vulnerable people who use AI can become

psychotic, suicidal, homicidal,

whatever. If you sort of say that, then

the second way, the second piece of

information that you need to be able to

say that is to be measuring those

outcomes in that population. If I were

to say this risk factor leads to this

outcome, I can only make that statement.

And if I say that the thing in the

middle, the AI is actually safe, the

only way I can make that statement is to

do a study where like I have people with

risk factors, people without risk

factors, give them both AI and then see

how the outcome is different. So once

again, are AI companies measuring

psychosis? Are they measuring suicidal

ideation? Are they measuring homicidal

ideation? And the answer is hopefully

not like sort of, right? Because that

means they're collecting health

information on their users, which I

don't think is part of what they're

supposed to be doing. People are making

these statements in AI leadership

without actually having the sufficient

information to make those statements

which then creates another problem which

is like how do they know that AI is

safe? How do they know that AI does not

induce suicidality, homicidality,

psychosis, depression, um unhealthy

attachment styles, social isolation? How

do they know what the safety effects of

AI are? Are they just reading the Wall

Street Journal and the New York Times

and stuff like that? Are basically

leadership at AI companies? Are they

reading media reports or are they doing

research? And then this is what's really

scary is like are they basing their

statements based on the few cases that

enter the media? And so this problem

seems to be like growing quite a bit.

And what really scares me is if they are

using media articles, how do they know

that there are not people who are

quietly delusional, quietly psychotic,

who are not killing anyone yet or not

committing suicide or things like that?

Like, how do they know that their

product is actually safe? And here's the

other thing that really scares me. What

do you have to do if you're running an

AI company? What do you have to do to

know that your product is safe? So,

here's what I've seen as someone who has

worked with entrepreneurs, who has

worked with startup founders. When a

company who has a product is faced with

solving all of this stuff that is

outside of their product, right? They're

an AI company. They are not equipped, do

not have the bandwidth or the funding to

actually do randomized control trials on

the safety of their product. They're not

regula regulated by the FDA FDA. Right?

This is what's so interesting about AI

companies is even though have they have

profound mental health impacts, they are

not formally in the system for a

valuation for mental health impacts. So

when I work with founders like this and

they are faced with this problem, I'm

just imagining like put yourself in the

shoes of someone who who is an AI

founder who suddenly people like people

are like just think about this how

[ __ ] insane this is. You you open up

the New York Times and you're like, "Oh

[ __ ] some guy who used my AI,

committed murder, killed their mother,

was delusional, and then committed

suicide." And you're like, "Well, [ __ ]

How am I supposed to solve that

problem?" When you are faced with

problems that are unsolvable or feel

unsolvable,

the best cope you can do is to do some

mental gymnastics, throw your hands up,

and say, "It's actually not my problem.

This is not the problem that exists.

It's way simpler than that. The simple

matter is that there are some people who

tragically are vulnerable to begin with.

It's not it's not my product that does

it, right? It's not my product. Like

cigarettes don't cause cancer. Like

that's insane, right? So there doctors

who talk about the health benefits of

cigarettes and how they make you

stimulated and they're like good for

your health and they give you a sense of

energy and like let's go. It's not my

product, not my problem. I'm not

cigarettes are not a medical device,

right? So I don't need to do studies on

them or things like that. There's no

like, oh, coincidentally people who are

high risk sometimes they get cancer. And

it sort of makes sense, right? Because

if you're someone who's like an AI CEO,

maybe you're a coder, you you look at

this medical problem and you don't know

how to solve it, right? You don't know

how to put together a clinical trial.

You don't have the money to put together

a clinical trial. So, what do you do?

You do this interesting, very basic

human sort of thing. I'm not saying that

any of these AI CEOs are specifically

doing this. I'm saying this is my past

experience working with an entrepreneur.

When you're faced with a problem that

you have no idea how to solve that could

result in findings that make it hard for

your company to make money like oh my

god dose high dose of AI induces

psychosis and suicidality. My business

model is to get people to use my product

more. We want people smoking more.

Right? And so when you're faced with

that problem you kind of throw up your

hands in the air and you kind of say

look this is not my area of expertise.

Sometimes [ __ ] happens to people. People

are psychologically vulnerable. And it I

I'm I'm not talking specifically about

Open AI, but I I think like in some ways

I think Open AI is doing a really good

job. So they released this great blog

post where they're sort of talking about

taking this pretty seriously. I know a

lot of users are actually complaining

about the most recent version of Chat

GBT because it's not as manipulatable.

It's not as sickopantic. Right? So I'm

not saying that these people are bad.

The reason I'm making this video is

because there is a small chance or large

chance that's up to you. We've presented

a lot of different evidence. You can

watch this other video that if you are

using AI, it's dangerous to you. I'm not

here to [ __ ] on AI CEOs or AI companies.

The reason I make I'm a psychiatrist and

this platform is about your health. The

reason I'm making this video is because

I want yall to understand that 10 years

from now, 15 years from now, 20 years

from now, hopefully we'll have a clear

answer that AI is dangerous, safe,

whatever. But the problem is in the

meantime you need to be careful.