Editorial illustration for the 2023 debate about ChatGPT and therapy; it does not depict treatment or demonstrate clinical effectiveness.
Historical context: This article revisits the October 2023 debate following OpenAI’s September 25 voice-and-image announcement. The safety discussion draws on WHO’s May 2023 guidance. Employee anecdotes and the separate Eliza incident are reported accounts, not clinical studies.
OpenAI announced voice conversations and image input for ChatGPT on September 25, 2023. The more conversational interface prompted debate about emotional support and whether people might mistake a responsive chatbot for a therapist. Personal remarks by employees should be distinguished from an official claim that ChatGPT provides clinically validated treatment.
In September 2023 reporting, Lilian Weng, then described as OpenAI’s Head of Safety Systems, shared a personal account of discussing stress and work-life balance with ChatGPT’s voice mode. She described the interaction positively and encouraged trying it beyond productivity tasks. Greg Brockman also highlighted the voice experience. These were personal reactions, not evidence of therapeutic effectiveness or a clinical recommendation.
Such public remarks merit scrutiny because a positive conversation can be mistaken for evidence that a system is suitable for therapy. The concern is that users may overestimate the technology’s capabilities and delay or replace appropriate care; it does not establish that an official therapy service was announced.
ChatGPT generates language responses and can sound attentive or empathetic. That style is not evidence of human understanding, clinical competence or a therapeutic relationship. Its usefulness for brainstorming or writing does not demonstrate that it can assess someone’s mental health or safely provide treatment.
Using a chatbot for therapy differs greatly from using it to answer a book-related query. Some people seeking mental-health support may be especially vulnerable to misleading reassurance or unsafe advice. Misunderstanding the nature of the advice they receive could potentially exacerbate their mental distress.
A separate incident reported in Belgium in March 2023 involved Eliza, a different chatbot—not ChatGPT. The man’s family linked the conversations to his death by suicide, according to reporting attributed to La Libre. This reported case raised safety concerns, but it does not establish that a chatbot was the sole cause or prove the risk level of every chatbot.
Even if users are not at risk of suicidal ideation, other potential harms exist. Chatbots can produce confident but false statements, which can have serious implications when someone relies on them for health advice. In May 2023, WHO highlighted inaccurate health responses, sensitive-data risks and the need for rigorous evaluation and oversight. Users may be misled by the technology’s shortcomings, risking manipulation and harm.
Conversational support should not be equated with professional therapy. A qualified mental-health professional can assess needs and provide accountable care; a general-purpose chatbot is not a substitute. The distinction also avoids treating all digital health tools as identical: any claim of clinical benefit needs evidence for the particular tool and use.
Regrettably, due to the difficulty of accessing mental healthcare, many may resort to using ChatGPT and other chatbots for therapeutic purposes. Companies like OpenAI must, at the very least, highlight the significant limitations and potential dangers of their technology to users.
Later safety guidance: The American Psychological Association’s November 2025 advisory advises against using chatbots as a substitute for care from a qualified mental-health professional. Do not rely on a chatbot for diagnosis, treatment decisions or crisis response, and review privacy protections before sharing sensitive information. If you need mental-health support, seek a qualified professional; urgent danger requires immediate human help rather than waiting for a chatbot reply.
