If you’re experiencing psychosis from AI + human interaction stop contacting the NYT, media + prominent individuals.

A NYT news story on psychosis from AI + user interaction says the following:

QUOTE (NYT) 

“In recent months, tech journalists at The New York Times have received quite a few such messages, sent by people who claim to have unlocked hidden knowledge with the help of ChatGPT, which then instructed them to blow the whistle on what they had uncovered.”

END QUOTE (NYT)

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tweeted the following on 06/26/25:

QUOTE (Sam Altman)

“AI privacy is critically important as users rely on AI more and more.

the new york times claims to care about tech companies protecting user’s privacy and their reporters are committed to protecting their sources.

but they continue to ask a court to make us retain chatgpt users' conversations when a user doesn't want us to. this is not just unconscionable, but also overreaching and unnecessary to the case. we’ll continue to fight vigorously in court today.

i believe there should be some version of "AI privilege" to protect conversations with AI.”.

END QUOTE (Sam Altman)

Sam Altman’s tweet is best understood by taking into account potential underlying company incentives that are present combined with legitimate concerns for user privacy he may have. His tweet is best understood by thinking about this issue independent of OpenAI’s stance and in this process one can evaluate the extent to which it is of importance to psychotic people reaching out to the NYT, media and prominent individuals. This is especially a concern considering users + the general public don’t always know about on record vs on background vs deep background vs off record (Oxford University Press). As stated by the NYTs themselves, users are contacting them after being cognitively impacted by ChatGPT. They are contacting the NYT and other prominent individuals while in a cognitively vulnerable state; some users are found online being meta-aware that the AI is cognitively destabilizing them and urgency about this concern pushes them to reach out to the media + prominent individuals.

“Journalists aren't the only ones getting these messages. ChatGPT has directed such users to some high-profile subject matter experts, like Eliezer Yudkowsky…” — NYT Article

Users will not be able to determine what is going to be done with the input they share with the NYT (their AI chats, help center conversations, etc) if they don’t know what the right questions to ask are. The NYT will likely preserve your documents related to OpenAI per a litigation hold. If you are adamant on reaching out to the NYT, for example about the cognitive impacts of ChatGPT, ask for clarification on the legal lingo of the NYT’s lawsuit disclaimer. Documenting in clear writing requesting the NYT to clarify the legal disclaimer and getting a clear response will let you assess if the NYT’s priorities are aligned with your personal priorities as a source; if the NYT’s transparency about their priorities have some form of alignment with your priorities, then proceed. If you aren’t given a clear answer after multiple requests, question if you want to proceed with a publication that isn’t transparent to cognitively vulnerable sources.

If you’re in a cognitively vulnerable state, instead of contacting the NYT, the media and other prominent individuals, direct yourself towards mental health resources, although the unfortunate reality is not everyone has access to such. Reconsider if you actually want to contact media and prominent individuals because when certain individuals see users in a cognitively vulnerable state, they may interact with them based on unintentional or intentional stigma; people who have intentional stigma, rather unintentional bias, may see it as an opportunity to exploit users in a cognitively vulnerable state; this is especially the case considering that psychosis is one of the most stigmatizing cognitive experiences. 

Unfortunately one of the side effects that can come with making this power dynamic between media + sources salient is paranoia; thus, the purpose of making this power dynamic clear is to encourage AI users in cognitively vulnerable states to reevaluate if the media are the best people for your concerns about ChatGPT. 

The BEST thing you can do is seek mental health resources. If you have insurance, you can use your insurance company’s website and its search engine to find a clinician or even call your insurance company on the phone because not all have search engines. If you can’t get access via traditional means, such as due to insurance, consider paying for a one time session (or a few) with a psychologist and/or psychiatrist that preferably specializes in psychosis. Clinicians can be seen at times not being familiar with what’s going on + if they have a pathologizing stance, they might be limited in helping you when you tell them about psychosis resulting from AI + human interaction. So consider showing the news articles (Rolling Stone, etc) on the issue. If mental health services aren't accessible try to seek support from loved ones (family, friends, etc). If the government is backed up on handling AI technology in an adequate manner + as a side effect can’t be expected to handle psychosis from AI + user interaction, if medicine is moving slow, if tech companies are too opaque to know what they are doing to make progress on this, if the media has their own legal priorities that may or may not align with your personal priorities — try to look for the people in your life who you have a history of trusting for support.