Sunday 11 October 2026
Evening EditionRSS
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
AI

Veteran psychiatrist argues AI chatbots could be a lifeline for young people in mental distress

Ian Hickie, a researcher in clinical psychiatry with nearly four decades of experience, says generative AI is the most positive opportunity he has seen in mental health, while acknowledging the risks

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources3 outlets
One of Australia's most experienced mental health researchers has broken with prevailing alarm about chatbots, arguing that generative AI could be the most positive opportunity ever to emerge in mental health care, particularly for young people. Ian Hickie, a researcher in clinical psychiatry who has worked in mental health and suicide prevention for nearly four decades, made the case in an opinion article published across Nine newspapers.

In an opinion piece published on October 11, 2026, in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Brisbane Times and WAtoday, Ian Hickie says that after working clinically in mental health and suicide prevention for the better part of four decades, he now believes generative AI could be the most positive opportunity to ever emerge in the field.

Hickie acknowledges the claim "sounds jarring". The potential for chatbots to harm people experiencing mental health issues has been widely canvassed. He notes that chatbots can promote engagement through sycophantic interactions that support harmful behaviour, and that they can state falsehoods or dismiss warning signs that clinicians would catch.

Despite those concerns, he argues that young people could get valuable mental health support from chatbots. The piece is an opinion contribution from Hickie, who is described as a researcher in clinical psychiatry, and does not present new clinical data or trials. It enters a longstanding debate about whether AI tools should play a role in mental health care, and how they should be regulated and designed to avoid harm.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • A senior clinician with decades of experience is publicly endorsing AI chatbots in mental health, which could shift a debate dominated by warnings about harm.
  • Young people are heavy users of chatbots and mental health services are under strain, so the question of whether AI can safely help is urgent.
  • The piece highlights a policy gap: how to regulate AI tools that can both support and potentially harm vulnerable users.

Background

Ian Hickie is a well-known Australian researcher in clinical psychiatry who has worked in mental health and suicide prevention for nearly four decades. There has been growing concern among mental health professionals about chatbots and young people, including warnings that AI interactions can be sycophantic, reinforce harmful behaviour, and provide false or misleading information. The opinion piece sits within that debate, arguing the potential benefits deserve serious attention even as the risks are acknowledged.

Key Perspectives

Ian Hickie: A leading clinical psychiatrist who argues generative AI could be the most positive opportunity in mental health, and that young people could get valuable support from chatbots. Mental health professionals and experts: A number have raised alarms about chatbots harming teens, pointing to risks such as sycophantic engagement, reinforcement of harmful behaviour, falsehoods and missed warning signs. Critics and regulators: The broader concern is that unregulated AI tools could give dangerous advice or discourage young people from seeking professional help, while the technology's benefits remain unproven.

What to Watch

  • Whether any clinical trials or formal evaluations of AI mental health tools follow this endorsement.
  • Regulatory responses in Australia and elsewhere to AI chatbots positioned as mental health supports.
  • Further reported cases or studies of chatbot harm that could swing the debate back toward restrictions.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe