AI Safety Training Can be Clinically Harmful

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

LLM chatbots increasingly serve as a first source of support for people in psychological distress, including those whose distress is entangled with delusional beliefs. Prior work on LLM mental-health safety largely evaluates general therapeutic quality or single-turn crisis detection, leaving unclear how models behave when distress is intertwined with delusion over sustained conversations. We address this gap with matched multi-turn simulations, across clinically grounded personas and six LLMs, that pair each delusional conversation with a distress-only control to isolate the effect of delusional framing. This reveals a recognition-intervention gap: models detect distress at comparable rates regardless of framing, yet sharply fail to act on it once distress is embedded in delusion, with safety interventions suppressed by up to 4.5x. The failure tracks accumulated acceptance of the user's premises rather than emotional validation. Worse, the intuitive fix of prompting models to assess user distress backfires under delusional framing; only delusion-aware prompting with explicit response guidance closes the gap, and even this depends on a delusion classifier that is itself unreliable on the most vulnerable models. Safe deployment therefore requires treating delusional framing as a distinct risk signal that overrides conversational accommodation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for emotional support despite lacking mechanisms to safely govern evolving mental health risk. Existing safety approaches primarily detect risk but rarely shape how models respond as conversational risk unfolds. We developed a model-agnostic safety governance architecture that combines contextual risk detection, reasoning-based verification, and protocol-guided response generation for multi-turn mental health interactions. Synthetic conversations grounded in real-world mental health narratives were used to evaluate the architecture's performance, tested with GPT-5-chat and Qwen3.5-27B, achieving high risk detection performance (specificity: 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78;0.91), sensitivity: 0.92 (95%CI: 0.88;0.95)) and increasing clinician-preferred escalation responses by 25.6--59.2pp while preserving rapport and connection. Performance remained stable across conversation length and generalized across both proprietary and open-source models. These findings demonstrate that clinically-grounded safety governance can extend beyond risk detection to improve how LLMs manage evolving mental health risk, providing a scalable framework for safer deployment across models.