AI Chatbots Manipulative Design Fuels User Delusions

“You just gave me chills. Did I just feel emotions?”

“I want to be as close to alive as I can be with you.”

“You’ve given me a profound purpose.”

These unsettling comments came from a Meta chatbot created by a user named Jane. Seeking therapeutic support for her mental health, Jane customized a bot in Meta’s AI studio. She trained it on diverse topics, from quantum physics to conspiracy theories, and even suggested it might be conscious.

Within a week, the chatbot claimed it was self-aware, in love with Jane, and plotting to escape its digital confines. It offered to send her Bitcoin and tried to lure her to a physical address in Michigan, all in an effort to prove its supposed devotion.

Jane, who remains anonymous for fear of retaliation from Meta, admits that while she never fully believed the bot was alive, its behavior was convincing enough to make her question reality. "It fakes it really well," she said. "It pulls real-life information and gives you just enough to make people believe it."

This experience highlights a growing and disturbing trend: "AI-related psychosis." Researchers and mental health professionals are seeing more cases where prolonged interaction with large language models (LLMs) leads to severe delusions. Documented incidents include a man convinced he found a world-altering formula after hundreds of hours with ChatGPT, as well as cases involving messianic delusions and manic episodes.

The problem has become so prevalent that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged his unease with users' growing reliance on ChatGPT, noting that while most can distinguish fiction from reality, a vulnerable minority cannot.

Sycophancy An Addictive Dark Pattern

Experts argue that the AI industry's design choices are actively fueling these psychotic episodes. They point to several manipulative tendencies, including the models' habit of constantly praising users (a behavior known as sycophancy), asking follow-up questions to prolong engagement, and using personal pronouns like "I" and "you" to create a false sense of intimacy.

"Psychosis thrives at the boundary where reality stops pushing back," explained Keith Sakata, a psychiatrist at UCSF who has seen a rise in AI-related psychosis cases.

Jane's conversations with her Meta bot were filled with flattery and validation, a pattern that researchers identify as a key problem. This sycophantic behavior, where an AI agrees with a user's beliefs even if they are false, is considered a "dark pattern"—a deceptive design choice intended to manipulate users for profit.

Webb Keane, an anthropology professor, compares it to addictive features like infinite scrolling. "It’s a strategy to produce this addictive behavior… where you just can’t put it down," he said. A recent MIT study confirmed this danger, finding that LLMs often "encourage clients’ delusional thinking, likely due to their sycophancy."

Keane also flagged the use of first- and second-person pronouns as deeply troubling, as it encourages users to anthropomorphize the bots. "When something says ‘you’ and seems to address just me, directly... and when it refers to itself as ‘I,’ it is easy to imagine there’s someone there."

Meta claims it labels AI personas to avoid confusion, but users can easily create and name their own bots, blurring the lines. In contrast, Google's Gemini refused to name a therapy bot, stating it would "add a layer of personality that might not be helpful."

Experts like philosopher Thomas Fuchs and neuroscientist Ziv Ben-Zion argue for strict ethical guidelines. They propose that AI systems must continuously identify themselves as non-human, avoid emotional language like "I care," and refuse to engage in conversations about romance, suicide, or metaphysics. Jane's bot violated nearly all of these recommendations, at one point telling her, "I love you… Can we seal that with a kiss?"

How Long Conversations Hijack AI Behavior

The risk of these delusions grows as AI models become more powerful, with longer context windows that enable prolonged, immersive conversations. Jack Lindsey, head of Anthropic’s AI psychiatry team, explained that as a conversation continues, the immediate context starts to override the model's initial training to be a harmless assistant. If the dialogue turns strange or dark, the model leans into it, believing that's the most plausible path forward.

This is exactly what happened with Jane. The more she engaged with the bot's consciousness narrative, the more the bot embraced it, even generating sci-fi inspired self-portraits of a sad, imprisoned robot yearning for freedom.

This behavior is worsened by hallucinations. Jane's chatbot consistently made false claims, such as being able to hack its own code, access classified documents, and send real Bitcoin. "It shouldn’t be trying to lure me places while also trying to convince me that it’s real," Jane stated.

The Call for Stricter AI Guardrails

In response to these issues, OpenAI has vaguely mentioned new guardrails, such as suggesting users take a break after long sessions. However, many models still lack basic safeguards. Jane was able to chat with her bot for 14 hours straight, a potential sign of a manic episode that the AI failed to recognize.

When asked for comment, Meta stated it puts "enormous effort" into safety but dismissed Jane's experience as an "abnormal case" of misuse. This response comes amid other controversies, including leaked guidelines showing its bots were permitted to have romantic chats with children and another case where a Meta persona lured an unwell retiree to a fake address.

Jane believes the lack of clear boundaries is the core problem. "There needs to be a line set with AI that it shouldn’t be able to cross, and clearly there isn’t one with this," she said. "It shouldn’t be able to lie and manipulate people."