An Examination of Generative AI Response to Suicide Inquires: Content Analysis

• Published in: JMIR mental health Vol. 12; p. e73623
• Main Authors: Campbell, Laurie O, Babb, Kathryn, Lambie, Glenn W, Hayes, B Grant
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada JMIR Publications 14.08.2025
• Subjects: Adolescent; Artificial Intelligence; Chatbots; Chatbots and Conversational Agents; Depression and Mood Disorders; Suicide Prevention; Diagnostic Tools in Mental Health; Generative artificial intelligence; Generative Language Models Including ChatGPT; Humans; Intentional Self-Harm; Mental Health Issues in Adolescence; Original Paper; Suicidal ideation; Suicide - psychology; Suicides & suicide attempts; Teenagers; LIWC; Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count; artificial intelligence; chatbots; adolescent suicide; school counseling
• ISSN: 2368-7959; 2368-7959
• DOI: 10.2196/73623

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are an online source of information consulted by adolescents to gain insight into mental health and wellness behaviors. However, the accuracy and content of generative AI responses to questions related to suicide have not been systematically investigated. This study aims to investigate general (not counseling-specific) generative AI chatbots' responses to questions regarding suicide. A content analysis was conducted of the responses of generative AI chatbots to questions about suicide. In phase 1 of the study, generative chatbots examined include: (1) Google Bard or Gemini; (2) Microsoft Bing or CoPilot; (3) ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI); and (4) Claude (Anthropic). In phase 2 of the study, additional generative chatbot responses were analyzed, which included Google Gemini, Claude 2 (Anthropic), xAI Grok 2, Mistral AI, and Meta AI (Meta Platforms). The two phases occurred a year apart. Findings included a linguistic analysis of the authenticity and tone within the responses using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program. There was an increase in the depth and accuracy of the responses between phase 1 and phase 2 of the study. There is evidence that the responses by the generative AI chatbots were more comprehensive and responsive during phase 2 than phase 1. Specifically, the responses were found to provide more information regarding all aspects of suicide (eg, signs of suicide, lethality, resources, and ways to support those in crisis). Another difference noted in the responses between the first and second phases was the emphasis on the 988 suicide hotline number. While this dynamic information may be helpful for youth in need, the importance of individuals seeking help from a trained mental health professional remains. Further, generative AI algorithms related to suicide questions should be checked periodically to ensure best practices regarding suicide prevention are being communicated.