As mental health services globally face unprecedented demand and resource shortages, many individuals are increasingly turning to generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT for emotional support and advice. While the promise of 24/7, non-judgmental responses is appealing to those in distress, new research and expert commentary warn of significant psychological and ethical risks in relying on AI as a substitute for traditional therapy. This latest debate, captured in a thought-provoking commentary published in The Guardian on August 3, 2025, highlights the pressing need for Thai readers to critically evaluate the role of AI in mental healthcare and to consider cultural and societal implications (The Guardian).
The ubiquity of generative AI in daily life, including mental health contexts, underscores a broader shift in how people process stress and seek support. As illustrated by a clinical psychologist in the article, individuals often turn to AI tools during crises—seeking guidance, reassurance, and even drafting personal communications. At first glance, this appears to be a logical adaptation in a world where access to trained professionals is limited, particularly in countries grappling with a mental health professional shortage, such as Australia and Thailand.
But why does this growing trend matter for Thai readers? Like many nations, Thailand faces significant mental health care disparities, especially outside urban centers. According to the Ministry of Public Health, the country has roughly one psychiatrist for every 100,000 people, far below the World Health Organization’s recommendation (Bangkok Post). With stigma still attached to seeking psychological help, and government services stretched thin, a digital “lifeline” becomes increasingly attractive—raising the question: can AI fill the gap responsibly?
Key facts from the research and expert insights suggest caution. While AI chatbots offer instant responses and the illusion of tailored care, they lack the critical ingredients of genuine therapy—empathy, nuance, and relational understanding. The featured case in the Guardian article draws attention to the risks: a patient, overwhelmed by workplace and relationship pressures, begins to rely so much on AI-generated scripts that it erodes his sense of self and damages genuine human connections. Messages crafted by AI may sound calm and rational, but they can come across as detached, inauthentic, and worse—enable avoidance of confronting personal accountability in relationships. This overreliance on AI can foster a dependence on external validation, rather than encouraging healthy coping mechanisms, self-reflection, or the messy but necessary work of emotional processing.
Mental health experts are warning that chatbots risk reinforcing unhelpful patterns, especially in individuals prone to anxiety, obsessive–compulsive disorder, or trauma. For instance, people with compulsive reassurance-seeking behaviors may find chatbots dangerously accommodating—they never challenge the user, never ask why a question is being repeated, never push the user to sit with discomfort. As the psychologist in the Guardian notes, this can ultimately stunt emotional growth and resilience.
Moreover, there are considerable ethical and privacy concerns with using generative AI for sensitive matters. Most people are unaware that conversations with chatbots may not be confidential, and the information shared can be analyzed or even reused depending on the platform’s data policy (OpenAI). The AI’s answers, generated via probabilistic modeling, can include hallucinations—responses that sound plausible but are factually incorrect—and may inadvertently perpetuate harmful stereotypes or biases, embedded in their training data (Nature).
Prominent voices in psychology now advocate for clear boundaries regarding the use of AI in therapy contexts. “Generative AI can provide useful psycho-educational content or support in emergencies, but it should never replace a real human relationship,” says a Bangkok-based clinical psychologist affiliated with a leading psychiatric hospital. “We must recognize the value that comes from the therapist’s ability to recognize non-verbal cues, encourage reflection, and help clients confront uncomfortable truths—tasks that AI simply isn’t equipped to deliver.”
In Thailand’s context, the risk of over-dependence on AI reflects both limitations in healthcare access and deep-rooted norms that favor indirectness or avoidance of confrontation in social interactions. The Thai concept of “kreng jai,” which involves avoiding conflict to preserve harmony, may prompt some individuals to turn to AI for clarity or affirmation, rather than risk awkward or emotional conversations. While technology can offer supplementary support, it cannot replace culturally sensitive, face-to-face care, which is vital for genuine progress in mental health.
At the same time, it is evident that generative AI tools—if used wisely—can help bridge some gaps in Thailand’s mental health infrastructure. For those in remote areas, or people afraid of stigma, AI might provide psycho-educational resources or momentary comfort. But the public must be educated to understand the limits of these tools. Stakeholders in Thailand’s healthcare sector, including policymakers, hospital administrators, and community health workers, should prioritize public awareness campaigns about the appropriate uses of AI, clearly outlining confidentiality limitations and the need for professional oversight.
Looking to the future, the explosion of generative AI in mental health contexts is not going away. Policymakers and technologists in Thailand and abroad are beginning to craft guidelines and ethical frameworks to mitigate risks. The World Health Organization has published recommendations for digital mental health, emphasizing that AI must always be supervised, regulated and supplemented by human expertise (WHO). Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society is reportedly developing local standards on AI use, though regulation is still in its infancy (Bangkok Post).
For Thai readers navigating their own mental health journeys, the key takeaway is to use generative AI tools with caution and self-awareness. Consider these practical recommendations:
- Treat generative AI chatbots as supportive tools for information and reflection—not as substitutes for medical advice or therapy.
- Be wary of sharing sensitive personal information with online platforms whose privacy standards may be unclear or non-existent.
- Use AI-generated suggestions as starting points for discussion with qualified professionals, rather than as final answers.
- Maintain or seek out in-person support when possible, whether from family, peer networks, or mental health professionals.
- Push for local discussion and regulation to protect users’ privacy and mental wellbeing in the age of AI.
Technology can undoubtedly be part of the solution to Thailand’s growing mental health challenges, but only if used with discernment and a firm grounding in local cultural, ethical, and human realities.
For those seeking mental health support in Thailand, resources such as the Department of Mental Health’s public hotline (1323), local hospitals’ psychiatric clinics, and trained counselors at schools and universities remain critical. As the AI revolution marches on, Thai society must ensure these distinctly human supports are complemented—not replaced—by the digital tools of tomorrow.
Sources used: The Guardian, Bangkok Post - Mental health issues on the rise in Thailand, OpenAI - Privacy Policy, Nature - The risks of generative AI in mental health, WHO - Ethics and governance of AI for health, Bangkok Post - Ministry sets course on AI ethics