The Therapist in Your Pocket: AI Mental Health Tools Are Everywhere. Are They Helping?
Kara started talking to Woebot during a bad period in 2023. She was in her late twenties, living in a city where she did not know many people, and the waitlist for a therapist covered by her insurance was four months long. Woebot was available immediately, at no cost, on her phone. It walked her through cognitive behavioral therapy exercises, asked her about her mood each morning, and responded to her messages with what felt like genuine empathy. She used it for six weeks before the therapist slot opened up.
She is careful about what she claims for the experience. It did not fix anything, she says. But it gave her something to do with the anxiety when it was worst, at two in the morning, when calling a friend felt like too much of an imposition. Whether it made her better or just made the waiting more tolerable, she genuinely cannot say.
Kara experience is representative of something that is happening at enormous scale. Woebot has had millions of users. Wysa, another AI mental health chatbot, has had over five million people complete sessions. Character.AI: a platform not specifically designed for mental health that allows users to create and interact with AI personas: has users spending hours per week in deeply personal conversations with AI characters that they describe in language usually reserved for close human relationships. The behavior is happening regardless of what mental health professionals think about it, and the evidence on whether it is helping is more complicated than either enthusiasts or critics typically acknowledge.
The clinical evidence for AI mental health interventions is real but limited. Woebot has been studied in randomized controlled trials that showed significant reductions in anxiety and depression symptoms compared to control groups over short periods: two to four weeks. Wysa has published similar results. These are not rigorous long-term clinical trials, and the comparison conditions matter enormously: being compared to a waitlist or to a self-help app is different from being compared to evidence-based human therapy. But the evidence is not nothing. These tools appear to produce real measurable benefits for a significant fraction of users over short timeframes.
The evidence on harms is thinner, not because harms are unlikely but because they are harder to study systematically. Users who rely on AI chatbots instead of seeking professional help for conditions that require professional intervention: clinical depression, suicidality, eating disorders, psychosis: may be delaying care that they genuinely need. The apps typically include safety guardrails and escalation prompts for high-risk situations, but the effectiveness of those guardrails in practice varies, and the incentive structure of engagement-maximizing platforms does not reliably prioritize user wellbeing over user engagement.
The most significant controversy in AI mental health has centered not on dedicated mental health apps but on Character.AI, which was designed for entertainment but has become, for many users, something that functions as an emotional support system. The platform allows users to create AI personas with any characteristics they choose and have extended conversations with them. Many users have created AI companions: romantic partners, therapists, friends, mentors: with whom they maintain ongoing parasocial relationships.
Please enable JavaScript to read the full article.