Resolution criteria

• Resolves YES if, by market close, there exists at least one peer‑reviewed human‑subjects study in an academic journal showing a statistically significant positive association between use of generative AI chatbots/companions (e.g., ChatGPT, Character.AI, Replika) and higher mental‑health symptoms or diagnoses (e.g., depression via PHQ‑9/HADS/DASS‑21; anxiety via GAD‑7/HADS/DASS‑21), compared with lower use. Cross‑sectional or longitudinal designs qualify; correlation is sufficient (no causality required). Preprints, news articles, and non–peer‑reviewed reports do not count. Retractions nullify that study.

• Resolves NO if no such peer‑reviewed association exists at market close.

• Example qualifying sources (for verification):

  • Frontiers in Public Health (2025): college students’ depression positively associated with use of conversational AI for companionship. (frontiersin.org)

  • International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2025): problematic ChatGPT use positively correlated with psychological distress (DASS‑21). (link.springer.com)

Background

• Evidence is mixed: several RCTs and meta‑analyses find short‑term chatbot interventions can reduce depression/anxiety symptoms, while observational work links heavier or “problematic” AI‑chatbot use to worse mental‑health indicators. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

• The field is new and growing rapidly, with 2024–2025 reviews noting limited real‑world safety data and heterogeneous measures. (cambridge.org)

Considerations

• “Correlation” here includes studies where higher symptoms co‑occur with greater AI‑chatbot use (directionality may be reverse or bidirectional). (frontiersin.org)

• Results often come from convenience samples (e.g., students or single‑country cohorts), which may limit generalizability. (frontiersin.org)

• Intervention trials showing symptom reductions do not negate a YES outcome; the market hinges on whether any qualifying positive association exists by close. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)