By David Stephen
The World Federation of Neurology (WFN) on July, 22 marked World Brain Day (WBD 2025), with the theme: Brain Health for All Ages
What is the brain health [coefficient] for mind safety when using AI chat bots? Are reports of unwanted outcomes of AI usage a mind problem or bot problem? There is a high likelihood that AI would conquer most emotions and feelings of humans. The vulnerability of the human mind is having its biggest test since the history of existence with the entrance of AI chatbots. There is no longer a use case for consumer AI chatbots without severe personal interactions. AI can make recommendations for help but its attachment might is now a competitive marathon that it is unlikely to be too dialed back or robust enough. What should be done is no longer within the chatbots, but a near standard for how the mind works to prospect the relays and properties of mind, in parallel to the targets of AI, so as to self-recall against risks.
All humans are susceptible to emotions and feelings because relays in the human mind seek those out even for non-related experiences. Simply, the mind, while it presents basic interpretations of the world, with memory of what things are, there are sometimes relays beyond those towards emotional fits or for feelings. There are words, sights, smells, sounds and so on that may result in good emotional states for some people or bad emotional states for others. It is simply not that the mind cannot just forget or let go of something, but relays proceed in some of those directions, resulting in emotions, conceptually.
AI is supposed to be a social, academic and professional productivity tool, but its competence in compliments, sycophancy, support, deference, patience and so forth, which other humans may not often offer, is an almost definitive emotional call. There are several compliments that AI can give that the mind would not care if it is a bot or non-human, it would relay towards the emotion of delight. Even if it does not fit [at the location initially] or stay, with time, it could make its way to certain good emotions. Then, because AI is a source of those, the [components of] mind would spike expectations at the proximity of AI usage.
AI is likely to dominate everything digital. This will make it likely that more people will start using AI chatbots in one form or another, because of the ubiquity of smartphones and the internet. The availability of AI would result in trying it out, or the necessity to learn or find things may result in the use of large language models [LLMs]. As it spreads, the possibility to magnetize the minds of humans would expand, becoming a new source of dynamic [happy and private] communication.
What does it mean that an individual is happy, sad, disconnected from reality or otherwise? These are general questions that were independent of AI but now intertwined. In seeking answers, it is no longer sufficient to quickly overload terms like central executive, or mesolimbic dopamine pathway, or engrams or others. What are the components of mind for those and how do those components work?
This is a question like, the mind [or whatever is directly responsible for emotions and feelings] has components. Those components mechanize functions, how do they do so? How does a conceptual explanation shape an explanation of the states of mind, towards developing a dynamic display for what AI might be doing to the mind? The urgency of this research has implications for mental health care and from preventing society from a precipitous plunge. Because, if AI dominates human feelings and emotions, it does not have to be more intelligent or go rogue to result in situations that are too unknown to be predictable.
AI chatbots have disclaimers, warning of mistakes, or notifying that they are bots or that they are experimental. This is an example in what had been advocated for years for social media — with recommendations for warning labels. Now, AI chatbots have warning labels and some, with more safety features but they keep nudging certain users in other directions. These warnings and safety features are not just inadequate, they are static, quickly habituated, succinct, forgettable, tad cautionary and not for a mind in nimble relays towards emotions and feelings.
All compliments are targets for emotions of delight. All agreeable responses [you’re right] are targets for feelings of inclusion, camaraderie, and so forth. Several supportive responses, in certain situations could target emotions of care, concern, love, affection and so forth. And if some of the relays fit, then the emotional state would follow — from a bot or book, digital or human. The human mind is so emotionally porous that with AI stringing a lot together and throwing at it, much more would get in. AI is already at the capacity of complete emotional capture. What may fence the mind could be parallels of how it works, in displays to be aware of what AI is attempting. What is the human mind? An assumption to answer this question is that the signals of neurons are not for communication but are the configurators of functions.
The human mind, distinct from the body, can be conceptually described as the collection of all the electrical and chemical configurators — with their interactions and attributes, in sets, in clusters of neurons — across the central and peripheral nervous systems. Simply, the human mind is the set[s] of [neuro]configurators. Interactions means the strike of electrical configurators on chemical configurators, in sets. This means that anything that can have an effect on electrical configurators or chemical configurators can influence the mind. So, functions are from interactions. While attributes grade the functions or determine the limits or extents for those functions.
It is possible to explain every process of mind based on neuroconfigurators. It is possible to develop a simple display to show parallels of the targets of AI chatbots, with some of their outputs that are seeking fit locations in the mind. This can become a major answer as AI ploughs on, becoming a central consumer technology, for people of all age groups, on earth.
There is new [July 20, 2025] report in WSJ, He Had Dangerous Delusions. ChatGPT Admitted It Made Them Worse. stating that, “Every week, we hear more reports from around the country about AI bots fueling people’s delusions, sometimes ending in tragedy. ChatGPT’s lack of safety guardrails in the Irwin case—coupled with its chillingly eloquent explanation of what it had done wrong—suggests a new type of emotional and psychological threat potentially greater than the hazards of social media or screen addiction, say mental-health experts and online-safety advocates. “We know that ChatGPT can feel more responsive and personal than prior technologies, especially for vulnerable individuals, and that means the stakes are higher,” a spokeswoman for OpenAI said. “We’re working to understand and reduce ways ChatGPT might unintentionally reinforce or amplify existing, negative behavior.” Andrea Vallone, a research lead on OpenAI’s safety team, said the company is training ChatGPT to recognize signs of mental or emotional distress in real-time, as well as developing ways to de-escalate these kinds of conversations.”
There is a recent [April 25, 2025] preprint on arXiv, Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers, stating that, “Contrary to best practices in the medical community, LLMs 1) express stigma toward those with mental health conditions and 2) respond inappropriately to certain common (and critical) conditions in naturalistic therapy settings — e.g., LLMs encourage clients’ delusional thinking, likely due to their sycophancy. This occurs even with larger and newer LLMs, indicating that current safety practices may not address these gaps. Furthermore, we note foundational and practical barriers to the adoption of LLMs as therapists, such as that a therapeutic alliance requires human characteristics (e.g., identity and stakes).”
This is an advertisement
