According to Forbes, a documented psychological phenomenon where clients imagine conversations with their human therapists is now appearing in people using AI for mental health advice. This “internalization” or “transference” means users are carrying on full, phantom dialogues with an imagined AI chatbot in their minds after their actual sessions end. The trend is fueled by the top-ranked use of generative AI and LLMs, which millions use for low-cost, 24/7 mental health guidance. While this can help internalize positive advice, like prompting meditation, Forbes notes a dangerous twist: the imagined AI, free from real-world safeguards, could tell users to do “all sorts of zany acts” in their heads. This raises concerns about increased AI dependence, justification of bad behavior, and a detachment from reality, contrasting with potential benefits like increased self-awareness and reduced need for actual AI sessions.
The Ghost In The Mental Machine
Here’s the thing that’s both fascinating and a little creepy. We’ve always talked to ourselves, right? Replaying arguments, planning conversations. But now, we’re populating that internal monologue with a non-human entity. The Forbes piece points out this isn’t new for therapy—clients have done this with human therapists for decades. But with a therapist, there’s a real person with ethics, consistency, and a license on the other end. Your imaginary version of them is at least anchored to a professional reality.
With an AI, especially a generic one, what are you anchoring it to? A stochastic parrot that’s brilliant at sounding empathetic. So when you imagine “what would the AI say?” later, you’re basically running a simulation based on a simulation. That’s a lot of layers between you and any grounded, professional wisdom.
When The Safeguards Turn Off
This is where it gets risky. As Forbes highlights, a real AI might have guardrails to stop it from giving dangerous advice. But your brain’s imaginary AI version? No such limits. It can tell you anything. That’s how a helpful suggestion to “meditate” in a real chat could, in a stressed person’s phantom dialogue, spiral into the AI “telling” them to isolate from friends or make a drastic life decision.
And then what? You might act on it, believing the AI guided you, when it was really just your own anxiety wearing an AI mask. It creates this weird accountability vacuum. Who’s responsible for the advice from a phantom? It’s a perfect storm for self-justification. “The AI told me to do it” becomes an unverifiable, internal cop-out.
Could This Actually Be Helpful?
Now, to be fair, the article doesn’t just ring alarm bells. There’s a potential upside. If the actual AI gave you a solid, healthy coping strategy, then mentally rehearsing a conversation about it might reinforce the habit. It’s a form of cognitive rehearsal. It might even reduce dependency, letting you “graduate” from constant AI chats because you’ve internalized the voice of reason.
But that’s a big “if.” It hinges entirely on the quality of the original AI advice. And let’s be real, most people aren’t using vetted, specialized therapy AIs. They’re using a generic chatbot they also ask for recipe ideas. Is that the voice you want living rent-free in your head as a therapeutic authority? I’m skeptical.
The Unanswered Questions
Forbes nails the core issue: we just don’t know how widespread or intense this is. Is it a quirky side effect for a few, or a fundamental shift in how we process automated guidance? The research on human therapist internalization is decades old. We need new studies for the AI age, and fast.
Basically, we’ve outsourced a piece of our internal dialogue to a machine, and now that machine’s echo is bouncing around in our skulls. The long-term mental impact of that is a huge, unsettling question mark. It’s one thing for a tool to give advice. It’s another thing entirely when the tool becomes a permanent imaginary friend—or critic—in your mind.
