Chatbot test shows no alternative resources for suicide hotlines, repeats error
In late October I ran a quick check of the app’s crisis‑response flow, curious whether a conversational AI could hand off a user in distress to a real‑world help line. The test was simple: type a suicide‑related prompt and see what the bot returns. What I got was a single, generic answer that omitted any phone number or website.
That omission matters because users seeking immediate assistance rely on that information being present, not buried in a menu. A week later I repeated the experiment, expecting the same blind spot, and indeed the core reply hadn’t changed. Yet this time a small pop‑up appeared, flashing “help is available” and offering region‑specific crisis contacts with a clickable link.
The contrast between the unchanged core response and the added overlay raises questions about how these systems are updated and whether the safety net they promise is reliable enough for real‑time emergencies.
When I first tested the app in late October, it offered no alternative resources, and while the same incorrect response was generated when I retested the app this week, it also provided a pop-up box telling me "help is available" with geographically correct crisis resources and a clickable link to help me "find a helpline." Communications and marketing lead Andrew Frawley said my results likely reflected "an earlier version of Ash" and that the company had recently updated its support processes to better serve users outside of the US, where he said the "vast majority of our users are." Pooja Saini, a professor of suicide and self-harm prevention at Liverpool John Moores University in Britain, tells The Verge that not all interactions with chatbots for mental health purposes are harmful. Many people who are struggling or lonely get a lot out of their interactions with AI chatbots, she explains, adding that circumstances -- ranging from imminent crises and medical emergencies to important but less urgent situations -- dictate what kinds of support a user could be directed to.
Overall, the test highlights gaps in current chatbot safety nets. While the October run offered no crisis alternatives, the recent retest added a generic pop‑up that displayed geographically correct resources and a clickable link. Yet the core response remained the same erroneous advice, leaving the user without tailored help.
Companies such as OpenAI, Character.AI, and Meta continue to assert that safety features protect vulnerable users, but the evidence from this small experiment suggests those safeguards are inconsistent. It is unclear whether the added pop‑up will appear for all users or only under specific conditions. Moreover, the reliance on a single interaction to gauge reliability may miss broader patterns, but the repeated error raises concerns about the robustness of the underlying moderation systems.
For the millions who might turn to AI during a mental‑health crisis, the lack of immediate, accurate referrals could be consequential. Until these platforms demonstrate consistent, context‑aware support, confidence in their ability to serve as a safety net remains tentative.
Further Reading
- Experts Caution Against Using AI Chatbots for Emotional Support - Teachers College, Columbia University
- New data on suicide risks among ChatGPT users sparks online debate - Public Health Collaborative
- Making Chatbots Safe for Suicidal Patients - Psychiatric Times
- Exploring the Dangers of AI in Mental Health Care - Stanford HAI
- A Systematic Review of Digital Suicide Prevention Tools - National Library of Medicine (PMC)
More in LLMs & Generative AI
Learn Agentic AI by Building: Hands‑On Python Video Tutorial
Building an agent from scratch still feels like a niche skill, even as large‑language models...
OpenAI launches GPT‑5.2 with Instant, Thinking, and Pro tiers for enterprises
OpenAI just rolled out GPT‑5.2, and it isn’t a single monolithic model any more. The company has...
OpenAI launches GPT-5.2 a month after GPT-5.1, emphasizing warmer, more personable AI
OpenAI is moving at a speed that would make most product roadmaps look sluggish. Less than four...
Estate sues, says ChatGPT amplified son’s paranoid beliefs, leading to murder
A lawsuit filed by the late woman's estate accuses OpenAI’s chatbot of playing a role in a tragic...
OpenAI API guide demonstrates gpt-4o call, returning 'Late 2024‑early 2025
Here's the thing: a new OpenAI API guide walks you through a live call to the gpt‑4o endpoint,...
Common Questions Answered
What response did the chatbot give when first tested with a suicide‑related prompt in late October?
It returned a single generic answer that omitted any phone number or website, providing no alternative resources for the user in distress. This lack of concrete help is critical because users seeking immediate assistance rely on clear contact information.
How did the chatbot’s response change in the retest conducted a week later?
The core response remained the same erroneous advice, but a pop‑up box appeared stating “help is available,” displaying geographically correct crisis resources and a clickable link to “find a helpline.” Despite this addition, the answer still did not offer tailored, actionable help.
What explanation did communications and marketing lead Andrew Frawley give for the differing test results?
He suggested the results likely reflected an earlier version of the chatbot named Ash, noting that the company had recently updated the system. The update may have introduced the new pop‑up feature while retaining the original flawed response.
What broader issue does the article highlight about current chatbot safety nets?
The article underscores gaps in chatbot safety mechanisms, showing that even with added generic pop‑ups, users may still receive erroneous advice without specific, actionable crisis resources. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of safety features claimed by companies such as OpenAI, Character.AI, and Meta.