{"id":566776,"date":"2026-05-05T04:00:18","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T04:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/566776\/"},"modified":"2026-05-05T04:00:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T04:00:18","slug":"it-bothers-me-that-this-could-be-deployed-by-employers-your-boss-could-soon-know-youre-struggling-before-you-do-inside-the-rise-of-ai-mental-health-prediction-tools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/566776\/","title":{"rendered":"‘It bothers me that this could be deployed by employers’: your boss could soon know you\u2019re struggling before you do \u2014 inside the rise of AI mental health prediction tools"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ever since tools like ChatGPT and Claude<\/a> went mainstream, there\u2019s been a big debate about whether AI should be used for mental health support. Can a chatbot really replace a therapist?<\/a> That\u2019s a question I\u2019ve asked many times before, and one that still doesn\u2019t have a simple answer.<\/p>\n

But AI tools may be able to do more than respond to distress \u2014 some may be able to anticipate it.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A new wave of tools \u2014 many aimed at workplaces \u2014 might be able to spot the early signs of depression, anxiety, or even suicide risk before someone is even aware of it. They’re able to analyze patterns in behavior, language, voice and daily activity, looking for subtle signals that something may be wrong.<\/p>\n

Article continues below <\/p>\n

You may like<\/p>\n

On paper, it\u2019s a really appealing idea. But the reality is much more complicated, and the questions go well beyond whether the technology actually works or not.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth being clear upfront that these tools aren\u2019t all the same. But many of them do rely on a similar set of ideas.<\/p>\n

Most AI mental health tools collect data in two ways. The first is information that you actively provide \u2014 think mood check-ins, sleep logs, journal entries, or even conversations with a chatbot<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The second is everything else. Often referred to as passive sensing, this includes data gathered in the background, like how much you move, how often you message people, how you speak and how quickly you type. The data that\u2019s collected will depend on what these tools can access, whether that\u2019s information from your wearable, your computer, or apps you use.<\/p>\n

Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.<\/p>\n

The premise is really simple. Changes in behavior often appear before someone consciously recognizes that they\u2019re struggling. An AI system, continuously scanning enough of these signals, may be able to detect those shifts early, flag an issue, and get you help more quickly.<\/p>\n

On top of this data layer, many tools use AI chatbots trained on therapeutic approaches such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to offer support in the moment. They might suggest coping strategies, helping you to reframe thoughts or prompt reflection.<\/p>\n

Some elements of this technology are already in use. For example, Meta has long used text and behavioral signals to identify users who may be at risk<\/a>, while companies like Kintsugi<\/a> focus on analyzing voice for signs of mental health conditions. Workplace platforms like Unmind<\/a> have also explored similar approaches.<\/p>\n

What to read next<\/p>\n

However, it\u2019s difficult to map the full picture. Many of these capabilities are built into wider AI systems and aren\u2019t always visible to users, so their use may be broader than what we publicly know.<\/p>\n

When it comes to whether these tools actually work, the answer is: it depends.<\/p>\n

There is some evidence that AI can detect patterns<\/a> linked to mental health risks \u2014 particularly in areas like symptom monitoring and suicide risk screening<\/a>. But the results are mixed, and performance varies widely depending on the population, the data being used and how the system is deployed.<\/p>\n

In practice, most research suggests these tools work best as a supplement to clinicians, rather than a replacement for professional judgement. Reliable, real-world prediction remains much harder.<\/p>\n

So, what I’m saying is much more research is needed before AI-driven mental health prediction can be considered robust or widely dependable.<\/p>\n

“There are so many nuanced issues that this technology brings up,” says psychologist and AI risk advisor Genevieve Bartuski of Unicorn Intelligence Tech Partners<\/a>. “My fear is that it’s hitting the market before they are fully addressed.”<\/p>\n

\n

\"Trend\n<\/p>\n

(Image credit: Getty Images \/ Deagreez)What are the concerns?<\/p>\n

“When people know they are being watched, they tend to perform. It is an automatic response and often, people don’t even realize they are doing it,\u201d explains therapist Amy Sutton from Freedom Counselling<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This is known as the Hawthorne Effect. The tendency to change behavior when you know you\u2019re being observed. In the context of AI monitoring your mental health that could mean people masking signs of distress, consciously or not.<\/p>\n

On the flip side, if these tools are rolled out as part of workplace wellbeing programmes and people don\u2019t know they\u2019re being monitored, that raises serious questions about consent.<\/p>\n

It also raises a more fundamental question: whose interests are these systems really serving \u2014 the individual\u2019s wellbeing, or the organization\u2019s risk management?<\/p>\n

\u201cIt bothers me that this could be deployed by employers,\u201d Bartuski tells me. \u201cThis is information that employers do not need to have or to know. They do not need information about a person’s mental health, especially when it can be used against the employee.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even when participation is presented as optional, consent can quickly become murky. \u201cDoes it put the employee at risk of being negatively impacted if they do not want to participate? If so, that isn’t really consent. It’s coercive consent,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

Sutton adds that workplace monitoring could actually worsen the problem it\u2019s trying to solve. \u201cWith mental health stigmas still rife, AI observation would likely lead to greater efforts to hide evidence of struggles. This could create a dangerous spiral, where the greater our efforts to hide low mood or anxiety, the worse it becomes.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also the risk of false positives when it comes to AI \u2014 where someone is flagged as being at risk when they\u2019re not \u2014 and the consequences of that can be serious, particularly in systems that trigger intervention.<\/p>\n

Where does this leave us?<\/p>\n

The pressure to develop these tools is real. The WHO estimates<\/a> depression and anxiety cost the global economy $1 trillion a year in lost productivity. That’s a number that makes early warning systems look attractive to a lot of employers.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a risk that prediction tools become a shortcut. An alternative to the slower, more expensive work of building environments where people feel able to say they\u2019re struggling, investing in human support, and creating the conditions where someone notices when a colleague isn\u2019t okay.<\/p>\n

“We are being encouraged to give up a basic need of real human connection to be productive, and in turn productivity decreases due to the impact of loneliness and disconnection,\u201d Sutton says.<\/p>\n

It echoes a broader pattern I’ve noticed during my AI reporting over the past year. People often turn to AI for support when real-world networks fall short \u2014 sometimes with benefits, but often as a substitute rather than a solution.<\/p>\n

AI systems that could genuinely flag a mental health crisis early \u2014 with meaningful consent and proper safeguards \u2014 might have a place. But without that, they risk doing the opposite of what they promise: making problems harder to see, and giving organizations a reason not to look.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\"Google\n<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Follow TechRadar on Google News<\/a> and add us as a preferred source<\/a> to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Ever since tools like ChatGPT and Claude went mainstream, there\u2019s been a big debate about whether AI should…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":566777,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[554,733,4308,86,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-566776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-artificial-intelligence","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-artificialintelligence","tag-technology","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=566776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566776\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/566777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=566776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=566776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=566776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}