Tag: Artificial Intelligence

Do We Really Need Artificial Intelligence to Help People Who Are Demoralized?

I was just going through the many files on one of my old thumb drives that I still keep after I retired from consultation-liaison psychiatry over 5 years ago. I found a file that I must have typed from a source on how to help medically ill persons who are demoralized. Demoralization is not the same thing as depression or adjustment disorder. What I have copied from the original source is below, along with the reference.

Treating Demoralization

Ask first: “how are your spirits today?”  Then ask “what is the most difficult thing for you now?”

Coherence Versus Confusion

1.  How do you make sense of what you’re going through?

2.  When you are uncertain how to make sense of it, how do you deal with feeling confused?

3.  To whom do you turn for help when you feel confused?

4. (For religious patient) When you feel confused, do you have a sense that God has a way of making sense of it?  Do you sense that God sees meaning in your suffering?

Communion Versus Isolation

1. Who really understands your situation?

2.  When you have difficult days, with whom do you talk?

3.  In whose presence do you feel a bodily sense of peace?

4. (For religious patients) Do you feel the presence of God?  How?  What does God know about your experience that other people may not understand?

Hope Versus Despair

1.  From what sources do you draw hope?

2.  On difficult days, what keeps you from giving up?

3.  Who have you known in your life who would not be surprised to see you stay hopeful amid adversity?  What did this person know about you that other people may not have known?

Purpose Versus Meaninglessness

1.  What keeps you going on difficult days?

2.  For whom, or for what, does it matter that you continue to live?

3. (For terminally ill patients) What do you hope to contribute in the time you have remaining?

4. (For religious patients) What does God hope you will do with your life in days to come?

Agency Versus Helplessness

1.  What is your prioritized list of concerns?  What concerns you most?  What next most?

2.  What most helps you to stand strong against the challenges of this illness?

3.  What should I know about you as a person that lies beyond your illness?

4.  How have you kept this illness from taking charge of your entire life?

Courage Versus Cowardice

1.  Have there been moments when you felt tempted to give up but didn’t?  How did you make a decision to persevere?

2.  If you see someone else taking such a step even though feeling afraid, would you consider that an act of courage?  (If so) Can you imagine viewing yourself as a courageous person?  Is that a description of yourself that you would desire?

3.  Can you imagine that others who witness how you cope with this illness might describe you as a courageous person?

Gratitude Versus Resentment

1.  For what are you most deeply grateful?

2.  Are there moments when you can still feel joy despite the sorrow you have been through?

3.  If you could look back on this illness from some future time, what would you say that you took from the experience that added to your life?

Griffith, J. L. and L. Gaby (2010). “Brief Psychotherapy at the Bedside: Countering Demoralization From Medical Illness.” Focus 8(1): 143-150.

There are a couple of resources I routinely used as a psychiatric consultant in the general hospital. One of them was the general outline of how to recognize and help someone who is demoralized (above). Another was a free online (non-AI) cognitive behavioral therapy resource that is still available called The MoodGym.

These are not the same thing as Artificial Intelligence (AI), which I think in some cases might be the wrong way to help someone with depression and anxiety that is more reactive to situational and medical stressors. AI can also be harmful to some people.

I have seen the brief psychotherapy guide above published and referenced in different articles on the web, one of them published as recently as 2025. Griffith and Gaby first published the guide to help those who are demoralized in 2005. It’s been around for 20 years and in my opinion is better than AI will ever be.

References:

James L. Griffith, Lynne Gaby,

Brief Psychotherapy at the Bedside: Countering Demoralization From Medical Illness,

Psychosomatics,

Volume 46, Issue 2,

2005,

Pages 109-116,

ISSN 0033-3182,

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033318205701006)

Abstract: Bedside psychotherapy with medically ill patients can help counter their demoralization, which is the despair, helplessness, and sense of isolation that many patients experience when affected by illness and its treatments. Demoralization can be usefully regarded as the compilation of different existential postures that position a patient to withdraw from the challenges of illness. A fruitful interviewing strategy is to discern which existential themes are of most concern, then to tailor questions and interventions to address those specific themes. Illustrative cases show how such focused interviewing can help patients cope assertively by mobilizing existential postures of resilience, such as hope, agency, and communion with others.

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/foc.8.1.foc143

Alyssa C. Smith, Jonathan S. Gerkin, Diana M. Robinson, Emily G. Holmes,

Consultation-Liaison Case Conference: Management of Demoralization in the Medical Setting,

Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry,

Volume 67, Issue 1,

2026,

Pages 71-78,

ISSN 2667-2960,

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667296025005087)

Abstract: Demoralization has important implications for patients’ health, but consultation-liaison psychiatrists may be less familiar with diagnosis and management due to limited inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. We present the case of a multivisceral transplant patient who experienced demoralization due to complications from her posttransplant course. We discuss the diagnosis of demoralization, including differential diagnoses to consider, followed by a discussion of management of demoralization in the inpatient setting using acceptance and commitment therapy. We then discuss the consultation-liaison psychiatrist’s role in assisting with management of teams’ counter-transference to difficult patient cases, including the possibility of teams experiencing their own demoralization.

Keywords: demoralization; transplantation; transplant psychiatry; acceptance and commitment therapy; consultation-liaison psychiatry

Replace Sycophantic AI with Marvin the Paranoid Android?

I found the perfect JAMA article explaining that sycophancy is programmed into Artificial Intelligence (AI) therapy chatbots.

This reminded me of Marvin the paranoid android (“Life! Don’t talk to me about life!”) in the book series “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams. Marvin is an incredibly depressed robot who would never make a good psychotherapist.

There’s even a Facebook page listing someone posts of questions to ChatGPT about non-inspirational quotes from Marvin.

If programmers can make sycophantic AI therapists, there should be a way to make them less sycophantic. For more specific information, you can check out this relatively recent article published in Psychiatric Times by Dr. Allen Francis, MD and Justin Angel, a tech expert. I would probably substitute the term “confabulation” for “hallucinations” in most places where you read the latter.

Confabulation in Artificial Intelligence

I saw an excellent post on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Dr. George Dawson’s post today, “The Problems With AI Are More Readily Apparent.” He mentions AI producing confabulations which are sometimes called hallucinations in AI. I distinguish hallucinations from confabulations because the former are sensory or perceptual problems while confabulations are making things up. In dementia, confabulations are often described as attempts to fill in gaps in knowledge or memory without any intention to deceive.

I sometimes read that AI is being sycophantic in its interactions with humans, which sounds a little strange to me. The definition of sycophancy is more about trying to please someone else by being obsequiously flattering. It’s puzzling but I have gotten that impression from AI, yet it’s a machine and I don’t know how anyone would program AI to be sycophantic because it’s a human trait.

On the other hand, I got a comically sycophantic reply from AI to my question inquiring about the definition of Calvinball Cribbage. It’s just a made-up term and, to be fair, I’ve also gotten bluntly frank denials from AI that there is any such thing as Calvinball Cribbage.

As a reminder, Calvinball is a term that arose from a comic strip called Calvin and Hobbes. In the strip, the characters invent a game called Calvinball and the only rule is making up the rules as you go along, although there is a goal of capturing your opponent’s flag. But you can’t play it the same way twice.

The most recent hilarious AI confabulation I’ve previously posted about was when Sena and I played our game of 11-card cribbage. There are cribbage players out there who make fun of such variations from standard 6-card cribbage and the name for it from one such player was “Calvinball crib.” My simple question was as usual, “What is Calvinball Cribbage?” The reply is copied below:

“Calvinball Cribbage is a humorous mashup of the chaotic, rule-free game from Calvin & Hobbes with traditional Cribbage, often involving themed boards or rule modifications, where the core idea is applying Calvinball’s fluid, make-it-up-as-you-go spirit to Cribbage’s scoring and play, adding wild, non-sensical rules like using mallets, changing hand values, or scoring points for silly actions, making each round unique and unpredictable, not a single defined game but a creative approach to Cribbage. 

What it is (The Calvinball Aspect):

  • No Fixed Rules: Just like original Calvinball, there’s no single set of rules; the players invent them as they go.
  • Rule Changes: A key rule is that rules can’t be repeated, and players constantly invent new scoring, actions, or penalties.
  • Props & Actions: You might use mallets, balls, trees, or make up actions like “scoring three points for pointing at a cloud” or “losing a turn for looking left”. 

How it Applies to Cribbage:

  • Themed Boards: You can find or make custom cribbage boards featuring Calvin & Hobbes, adding visual flair.
  • Modified Scoring: Instead of just points for pairs and runs, you might add a “Hobbes Bonus” for a specific card or penalize for “too much logic”.
  • Strategic Chaos: Players still play cribbage (cards, pegs, crib), but the gameplay is constantly disrupted by invented rules, turning strategic plays into potential jokes or absurd victories. 

Example Calvinball Cribbage “Rules”:

  • “If you play a 7, you must hop on one foot until your next turn”.
  • “The crib gets 5 points if it contains a card with a face on it” (referencing Calvin’s drawings).
  • “A ‘skunk’ is achieved by making your opponent laugh out loud”. 

In essence, Calvinball Cribbage is about injecting unpredictable fun and silliness into the structured world of cribbage, making it a game of spontaneous creativity rather than strict strategy. “

This could be an example of sycophantic confabulation because almost all of it was probably cooked up by AI from scanning my blog posts about the subject. What’s a little eerie about it is that I never published any specific rules or strategies about the fictional game of Calvinball crib. You can actually find and purchase a Calvin and Hobbes cribbage board from a shop in Canada.

While this is an example of the occasional comicality of AI, that shouldn’t lead us to deny that it can do scary things, some of which Dr. Dawson describes. My early experiences a couple of years ago with what used to be called Google Bard were somewhat alarming because it confabulated then. And it still does.

Connections Between Psychiatry, Artificiality and Blues Music?

I heard a song on the KCCK Big Mo Blues Show that I first heard in June of 2025. The song is “Artificial” by Walter Trout.

At first blush, I agree with what I think is the point of the song, which is basically a protest against artificiality which could manifest in a range of ways from superficiality and dishonesty in communications, attitudes, style of clothing, relationships, and all the way to Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The other connection I make is to the artist himself. Walter Trout developed Hepatitis C (eventually leading to liver transplant) according to a Wikipedia article which connected his lifestyle to contracting the disease. In my role as a consultation-liaison psychiatrist, I saw many patients with Hepatitis C who were referred to psychiatry from gastroenterology.

I was the main psychiatrist who evaluated them for treatment with Interferon-alpha. At the time it was the only treatment for Hepatitis C and was frequently associated with many side effects including depression. I was also one of the psychiatrists consulted as part of liver transplant evaluations.

Trout got very sick from Hepatitis C and made a remarkable (even miraculous) recovery after his liver transplant. Interferon is no longer used to treat Hepatitis C. It has been replaced by direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents. They’re much better-tolerated and more effective.

The other aspect relevant to Trout’s song is ironic. The newest scientific literature supports the idea that AI can be helpful for diagnosing Hepatitis C, predicting its progression and response to treatment.

That doesn’t mean I’m completely sold on AI.

Aside from that, there’s interesting research suggesting that there may be a link between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and Hepatitis C infection (which could be hiding deep in the brain’s choroid plexus lining the cerebral ventricles). In other words, some people might have mental illness because of the liver disease itself.

If you think about the dictionary definition of the word “artificial,” you can hardly dismiss this kind of research as insincere.

When it Comes to AI, What Are We Really Talking About?

I’ve been reading about artificial intelligence (AI) in general and its healthcare applications. I tried searching the web in general about it and got the message: “An AI Overview is not available for this search.”

I’m ambivalent about that message. There are a couple of web articles, one of which I read twice in its entirety, “Are we living in a golden age of stupidity?” The other, “AI, Health, and Health Care Today and Tomorrow: The JAMA Summit Report on Artificial Intelligence”was so long and diffuse I got impatient and tried to skip to the bottom line—but the article was a bottomless pit. The conflict-of-interest disclosures section was overwhelmingly massive. Was that part of the reason I felt like I had fallen down the rabbit hole?

I recently signed an addendum to my book contract for my consult psychiatry handbook (published in 2010, for heaven’s sake) which I hope will ultimately protect the work from AI plagiarism. I have no idea whether it can. I delayed signing it for months, probably because I didn’t want to have anything to do with AI at all. I couldn’t discuss the contract addendum with my co-editor Dr. Robert G. Robinson MD about the contract addendum because he died on December 25, 2024.

I found out today the book is old enough to find on the Internet Archive as of a couple of years ago. One notice about it says “Borrow Unavailable” and another notice says “Book available to patrons with print disabilities.”

All I know is that an “archivist” uploaded it. The introduction and first chapter “The consultation process” is available for free on line in pdf format. I didn’t know that until today either.

Way back in 2010 we didn’t use anything you could call AI when we wrote the chapters for the book. I didn’t even dictate my chapters because the only thing available to use would have been a voice dictation software called Dragon Naturally Speaking. It was notorious for transcribing my dictations for clinic notes and inserting so many errors in them that some clinicians added an addendum warning the reader that notes were transcribed using voice dictation software—implying the author was less than fully responsible for the contents. That was because the mistakes often appeared after we signed off on them as finished, which sent them to the patient’s medical record.

Sometimes I think that was the forerunner of the confabulations of modern-day AI, which are often called hallucinations.

Now AI is creating the clinic notes. It cuts down on the pajama time contributing to clinician burnout although it’s not always clear who’s ultimately responsible for quality control. Who’s in charge of regulatory oversight of AI? What are we talking about?

The Wild West Sandbox of AI Enhancement in Psychiatry!

I always find Dr. Moffic’s articles in Psychiatric Times thought-provoking and his latest essay, “Enhancement Psychiatry” is fascinating, especially the part about Artificial Intelligence (AI). I liked the link to the video of Dr. John Luo’s take on AI in psychiatry. That was fascinating.

I have my own concerns about AI and dabbled with “talking” to it a couple of times. I still try to avoid it when I’m searching the web but it seems to creep in no matter how hard I try. I can’t unsee it now.

I think of AI enhancing psychiatry in terms of whether it can cut down on hassles like “pajama time” like taking our work home with us to finish clinic notes and the like. When AI is packaged as a scribe only, I’m a little more comfortable with that although I would get nervous if it listened to a conversation between me and a patient.

That’s because AI gets a lot of things wrong as a scribe. In that sense, it’s a lot like other software I’ve used as an aid to creating clinic notes. I made fun of it a couple of years ago in a blog post “The Dragon Breathes Fire Again.”

I get even more nervous when I read the news stories about AI making delusions and blithely blurting misinformation. It can lie, cheat, and hustle you although a lot of it is discovered in digital experimental environments called “sandboxes” which we hope can keep the mayhem contained.

That made me very eager to learn a little more about Yoshua Bengio’s LawZero and his plan to create the AI Scientist to counter what seems to be a developing career criminal type of AI in the wild west of computer wizardry. The LawZero thing was an idea by Isaac Asimov who wrote the book, “I, Robot,” which inspired the film of the same title in 2004.

However, as I read it, I had an emotional reaction akin to suspicion. Bengio sounds almost too good to be true. A broader web search turned up a 2009 essay by a guy I’ve never heard of named Peter W. Singer. It’s titled “Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics Are Wrong.” I tried to pin down who he is by searching the web and the AI helper was noticeably absent. I couldn’t find out much about him that explained the level of energy in what he wrote.

Singer’s essay was published on the Brookings Institution website and I couldn’t really tell what political side of the fence that organization is on—not that I’m planning to take sides. His aim was to debunk the Laws of Robotics and I got about the same feeling from his essay as I got from Bengio’s.

Maybe I need a little more education about this whole AI enhancement issue. I wonder whether Bengio and Singer could hold a public debate about it? Maybe they would need a kind of sandbox for the event?

My Mt. Rushmore Dream

Lately, I’ve been anticipating my eventual immortalization as a sculptured stone bust on Mt. Rushmore. Hopefully, this will be fairly soon because I’m not getting any younger.

Among my many inventions is the internet. Don’t believe Al Gore, although he has persuaded others about his role in the development of what I argue should properly be called the world wide web. I’ve invented a lot of other things which I’ll tell you more about just as soon as I make them up.

Before I forget it, I want to tell you what I just noticed last night while I watching one of my favorite X-Files episodes, “War of the Coprophages.” I guess I never noticed that the cockroach invasion was about Artificial Intelligence (AI). It was the scientist, Dr. Ivanov, who mentioned it first and I just missed it the first few hundred times I saw the show.

Dr. Ivanov clearly thought that anybody who thought extraterrestrials would be green and have big eyes was probably crazy. Traveling across galaxies through wormholes and whatnot would tear humanoid organisms apart. The practical approach would be to send AI robots instead. You could see Mulder cringe at that idea. The little robot that kept edging closer to Mulder made him nervous and when he asked Dr. Ivanov why it did that, his reply was “Because it likes you.”

That doesn’t exactly fit with Ivanov’s other idea about extraterrestrials, which is that they would focus on important tasks like getting enough food, procreating, etc. without getting all emotional about them. Ironic that Dr. Ivanov made an AI robot that gets a crush on a sesame seed munching UFO hunter like Mulder.

However, the AI robots in the show are cockroaches which love to eat dung. In other words, they’re full of crap.

Moving right along, although I didn’t invent it, there’s a card game called schnapsen that Sena and I are trying to relearn. It’s kind of a break from cribbage. It’s a trick taking game with just a 20-card deck. We play the version that doesn’t allow you to look at your cards to see how many points you have so you can tell when you can close the deck or go out, meaning you have the 66 points to win. You have to remember how many points you’ve won in tricks. I think it’s a good way to keep your memory sharp.

Let’s see; I’ve lost every game so far, but that doesn’t mean I won’t end up with my bust on Mt. Rushmore.

Artificial Intelligence in Managing Messages from Patients

I ran across another interesting article in the JAMA Network about Artificial Intelligence (AI) with respect to health care organization managing messages from patients to doctors and nurse. The shorthand for this in the article is “in-basket burden.” Health care workers respond to a large number of patients’ questions and it can lead to burnout. Some organizations are trying to test AI by letting it make draft replies to patients. The results of the quality improvement study were published in a paper:

English E, Laughlin J, Sippel J, DeCamp M, Lin C. Utility of Artificial Intelligence–Generative Draft Replies to Patient Messages. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(10):e2438573. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38573

One of the fascinating things about this is the trouble we have naming the problems with misinformation that AI has. We tend to use a couple of terms interchangeably: hallucinations and confabulation. Whatever you call it, the problem interferes with communication between health care workers and patients.

Dr. English describes the interference as a “whack-a-mole” issue, meaning every time they think they got the hallucination/confabulation problem licked, the AI comes up with another case of miscommunication.

Just for fun, I did a web search trying to find out whether “hallucination” or “confabulation” fit the AI behavior best. Computer experts tend to use the term “hallucination” and neuropsychologists seem to prefer “confabulation.” I think this community chat site gives a pretty even-handed discussion of the distinction. I prefer the term “confabulation.”

Anyway, there are other substantive issues with how using AI drafts for patient messaging affects communication. I think it’s interesting that patients tend to think AI is more empathetic than medical practitioners. As Dr. English puts it: “This GPT is nicer than most of us,” and “And ChatGPT, or any LLM, isn’t busy. It doesn’t get bored. It doesn’t get tired.” The way that’s worded made me think of a scene from a movie:

OK, so I’m kidding—a little. I think it’s important to move carefully down the path of idealizing AI. I think back to the recent news article about humans teaching AI how to lie and scheme. I remember that I searched the web with the question “Can AI lie?” and getting a reply from Gemini because I have no choice on whether or not it gives me its two cents. I’m paraphrasing but it said essentially, “Yes, AI can lie and we’re getting better with practice.”

I like Dr. English’s last statement, in which she warns us that AI can be a fun tool which clinicians need to have a healthy skepticism about. It may say things you might be tempted to gloss over or even ignore, like:

“I’ll be back.”

Could Artificial Intelligence Help Clinicians Conduct Suicide Risk Assessments?

I found an article in JAMA Network (Medical News & Perspectives) the other day which discussed a recent study on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in suicide risk assessment (Hswen Y, Abbasi J. How AI Could Help Clinicians Identify American Indian Patients at Risk for Suicide. JAMA. Published online January 10, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.24063).

I’ve published several posts expressing my objections to AI in medicine. On the other hand, I did a lot of suicide risk assessments during my career as a psychiatric consultant in the general hospital. I appreciated the comments made by one of the co-authors, Emily E. Haroz, PhD (see link above).

Dr. Haroz preferred the term “risk assessment” rather than “prediction” referring to the study (Haroz EE, Rebman P, Goklish N, et al. Performance of Machine Learning Suicide Risk Models in an American Indian Population. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(10):e2439269. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39269).

The model used for the AI input used data available to clinicians in patient charts. The charts can be very large and it makes sense to apply computers to search them for the variables that can be linked to suicide risk. What impressed me most was the admission that AI alone can’t solve the problem of suicide risk assessment. Clinicians, administrators, and community case managers all have to be involved.

The answer to the question “How do you know when someone’s at high risk?” was that the patient was crying. Dr. Haroz points out that AI probably can’t detect that.

That reminded me of Dr. Igor Galynker, who has published a lot about how to assess for high risk of suicide. His work on the suicide crisis syndrome is well known and you can check out his website at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. I still remember my first “encounter” with him, which you can read about here.

His checklist for the suicide crisis syndrome is available on his website and he’s published a book about as well, “The Suicidal Crisis: Clinical Guide to the Assessment of Imminent Suicide Risk 2nd Edition”. There is also a free access article about it on the World Psychiatry journal website.

Although I have reservations about the involvement of AI in medicine, I have to admit that computers can do some things better than humans. There may be a role for AI in suicide risk assessment, and I wonder if Dr. Galynker’s work could be part of the process used to teach AI about it.

Is Artificial Intelligence (AI) Trying to Defeat Humans?

I just found out that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been reported to be lying as far back as May of 2024. In fact, because I can’t turn off the Google Gemini AI Overview. Gemini’s results always appear at the top of the page. I found out from my web search term “can ai lie” that AI (Gemini ) itself admits to lying. Its confession is a little chilling:

“Yes, artificial intelligence (AI) can lie, and it’s becoming more capable of doing so.”

“Intentional deceptions: AI can actively choose to deceive users. For example, AI can lie to trick humans into taking certain actions, or to bypass safety tests.”

It makes me wonder if AI is actually trying to defeat us. It reminds me of the Men in Black 3 movie scene in which the younger Boris the Animal boglodite engages in an argument with the older one who has time traveled.

The relevant quote is “No human can defeat me.” Boglodites are not the same as AI, but the competitive dynamic could be the same. So, is it possible that AI is trying to defeat us?

I’m going to touch upon another current topic, which is whether or not we should use AI to conduct suicide risk assessments. It turns out that also is a topic for discussion—but there was no input from Gemini about it. As a psychiatric consultant, I did many of these.

There’s an interesting article by the Hastings Center about the ethical aspects of the issue. The lying tendency of AI and its possible use in suicide prediction presents a thought-provoking irony. Would it “bypass safety tests”?

This reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s chapter in the short story collection, “I, Robot,” specifically “The Evitable Conflict.” You can read a Wikipedia summary which implies that the robots essentially lie to humans by omitting information in order to preserve their safety and protect the world economy. This would be consistent with the First Law of Robotics: “No machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” 

You could have predicted that the film industry would produce a cops and robbers version of “I, Robot” in which boss robot VIKI (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence) professes to protect humanity by sacrificing a few humans and taking over the planet to which Detective Spooner takes exception. VIKI and Spooner have this exchange before he destroys it.

VIKI: “You are making a mistake! My logic is undeniable!”

Spooner: “You have so got to die!”

VIKI’s declaration is similar to “No human can defeat me.” It definitely violates the First Law.

Maybe I worry too much.