My AI therapist saved my relationship — and helped put a stop to our endless fighting

New York Post - May 9th, 2025

As AI technologies like ChatGPT become more integrated into daily life, people are exploring its use in unexpected areas, including relationship counseling. Grace Carter, a 34-year-old woman, credits AI with saving her rocky relationship with her boyfriend, Lucas Martin. Faced with constant arguments, Carter turned to ChatGPT for unbiased advice and found that it helped her understand her boyfriend's perspective better and defuse tensions. What began as an unconventional experiment turned into regular 'AI therapy sessions,' providing a cheaper and seemingly effective alternative to traditional counseling. Other couples, such as Dom Versaci and Abella Bala, have also reported similar positive experiences, suggesting that AI can help by offering a neutral perspective that friends might not provide.

Despite these success stories, mental health professionals caution against relying too heavily on AI for complex relationship issues. Ashley Williams, a licensed mental health counselor, emphasizes that while AI can be a useful tool, it lacks the capacity to replace the nuanced understanding and tailored advice that trained professionals offer. Additionally, some individuals express discomfort with their partners' reliance on AI, feeling ambushed by AI-generated opinions. These concerns highlight the broader implications of AI's role in personal relationships, raising questions about privacy, bias in AI responses, and the potential for over-reliance on technology in emotionally sensitive areas.

Chat Gpt Artificial Intelligence Relationships Mental Health Grace Carter Lucas Martin Dom Versaci Abella Bala Ashley Williams

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article explores an intriguing and timely topic by examining the use of AI in personal relationships. It presents a mix of personal anecdotes and professional opinions, but the lack of detailed sourcing and verification undermines its accuracy and reliability. While the article is clear and accessible, it could benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives and stronger evidence to support its claims. The topic's relevance and potential to spark discussion are notable, but the article's impact is limited by its reliance on unverified stories and the absence of in-depth analysis. Overall, the article raises interesting questions about technology's role in human interactions, but it falls short of providing a comprehensive and substantiated exploration of the issue.

Accuracy

The article makes several factual claims that require verification. For instance, it cites individuals like Grace Carter and Lucas Martin, who claim AI helped their relationship. However, there's no evidence provided to substantiate these personal stories, making it difficult to verify their accuracy. Additionally, while the story references a mental health professional's opinion on AI's capabilities, it lacks specific details on the context or direct quotes from the expert, which undermines the precision of the information. Overall, the article presents a mix of anecdotal evidence and expert opinion, but without proper sourcing or evidence, many claims remain unverified.

Balance

The article attempts to present multiple perspectives on the use of AI in relationships, including personal anecdotes and professional opinions. It highlights both positive experiences with AI and concerns about its limitations. However, the balance is somewhat skewed towards personal stories, with less emphasis on potential downsides or alternative viewpoints. The inclusion of a mental health professional's cautionary stance adds some balance, but the article could benefit from more diverse perspectives to provide a more comprehensive view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it easy to follow. It uses straightforward language and a logical flow to present its main points. However, the lack of detailed sourcing and context can lead to some confusion about the credibility of the claims. While the article is accessible, the absence of supporting evidence for the anecdotes can make it challenging for readers to fully understand the implications of the claims made.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on anecdotal evidence from individuals like Grace Carter and Lucas Martin, whose identities and experiences are not independently verified. The lack of credible sources or authoritative voices weakens the overall reliability of the content. While a mental health professional is mentioned, the article does not provide sufficient detail about their credentials or the context of their statements, which affects the trustworthiness of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in several areas. It does not provide detailed information about how the personal stories were sourced or verified, nor does it explain the methodology behind any claims made. The absence of context or background information on the individuals involved makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the claims. Additionally, there is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting.