News: 0178699416

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Illinois Bans AI Therapy, Joins Two Other States in Regulating Chatbots (msn.com)

(Saturday August 16, 2025 @05:49PM (EditorDavid) from the machine-language dept.)


"Illinois last week banned the use of artificial intelligence in mental health therapy," [1]reports the Washington Post , "joining a small group of states regulating the emerging use of AI-powered chatbots for emotional support and advice."

> Licensed therapists in Illinois are now forbidden from using AI to make treatment decisions or communicate with clients, though they can still use AI for administrative tasks. Companies are also not allowed to offer AI-powered therapy services — or advertise chatbots as therapy tools — without the involvement of a licensed professional.

>

> Nevada [2]passed a similar set of restrictions on AI companies offering therapy services in June, while Utah also [3]tightened regulations for AI use in mental health in May but stopped short of banning the use of AI.

>

> The bans come as experts have raised alarms about the potential dangers of therapy with AI chatbots that haven't been reviewed by regulators for safety and effectiveness. Already, cases have emerged of chatbots engaging in [4]harmful conversations with vulnerable people — and of users revealing personal information to chatbots without realizing their conversations [5]were not private .

>

> Some AI and psychiatry experts said they welcomed legislation to limit the use of an unpredictable technology in a delicate, human-centric field.



[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/illinois-bans-ai-therapy-as-some-states-begin-to-scrutinize-chatbots/ar-AA1KotWK

[2] https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/83rd2025/Bill/12575/Overview

[3] https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0452.html

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/24/character-ai-lawsuit-suicide/

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/13/meta-ai-privacy-users-chatbot/



"It could be that Walter's horse has wings" does not imply that there is
any such animal as Walter's horse, only that there could be; but "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" does imply Walter's horse's
existence. But the conjunction "Walter's horse exists, and it could be
that Walter's horse has wings" still does not imply "Walter's horse is a
thing that could have wings", for perhaps it can only be that Walter's
horse has wings by Walter having a different horse. Nor does "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" conversely imply "It could be that
Walter's horse has wings"; for it might be that Walter's horse could only
have wings by not being Walter's horse.

I would deny, though, that the formula [Necessarily if some x has property P
then some x has property P] expresses a logical law, since P(x) could stand
for, let us say "x is a better logician than I am", and the statement "It is
necessary that if someone is a better logician than I am then someone is a
better logician than I am" is false because there need not have been any me.
-- A. N. Prior, "Time and Modality"