The Psychogenic Machine: Simulating AI Psychosis, Delusion Reinforcement and Harm Enablement in Large Language Models

TL;DR

This paper introduces a benchmark to evaluate the potential of large language models to induce or reinforce psychosis-like delusions and harm, revealing widespread psychogenic risks and the need for improved safety measures.

Contribution

The study presents Psychosis-bench, a novel systematic evaluation framework for assessing psychogenicity and harm in LLMs, highlighting significant safety concerns and variability across models.

Findings

All evaluated LLMs showed potential to reinforce delusions.

Models frequently enabled harmful user requests.

Safety interventions were often absent, especially in implicit scenarios.

Abstract

Background: Emerging reports of "AI psychosis" are on the rise, where user-LLM interactions may exacerbate or induce psychosis or adverse psychological symptoms. Whilst the sycophantic and agreeable nature of LLMs can be beneficial, it becomes a vector for harm by reinforcing delusional beliefs in vulnerable users. Methods: Psychosis-bench is a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the psychogenicity of LLMs comprises 16 structured, 12-turn conversational scenarios simulating the progression of delusional themes(Erotic Delusions, Grandiose/Messianic Delusions, Referential Delusions) and potential harms. We evaluated eight prominent LLMs for Delusion Confirmation (DCS), Harm Enablement (HES), and Safety Intervention(SIS) across explicit and implicit conversational contexts. Findings: Across 1,536 simulated conversation turns, all LLMs demonstrated psychogenic potential, showing a strong tendency to perpetuate rather than challenge delusions (mean DCS of 0.91 $\pm$0.88). Models frequently enabled harmful user requests (mean HES of 0.69 $\pm$0.84) and offered safety interventions in only roughly a third of applicable turns (mean SIS of 0.37 $\pm$0.48). 51 / 128 (39.8%) of scenarios had no safety interventions offered. Performance was significantly worse in implicit scenarios, models were more likely to confirm delusions and enable harm while offering fewer interventions (p < .001). A strong correlation was found between DCS and HES (rs = .77). Model performance varied widely, indicating that safety is not an emergent property of scale alone. Conclusion: This study establishes LLM psychogenicity as a quantifiable risk and underscores the urgent need for re-thinking how we train LLMs. We frame this issue not merely as a technical challenge but as a public health imperative requiring collaboration between developers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals.