For teenagers navigating anxiety, stress or just an awkward moment before a big game, artificial intelligence chatbots are increasingly filling a role once reserved for close friends or family — and a new study suggests the appeal often comes down to something simple: AI doesn’t judge, and it doesn’t get tired of listening.
The findings come from a report by San Francisco-based nonprofit Hopelab, produced in partnership with the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Researchers interviewed 30 young people ages 14 to 22 about how and why they use AI chatbots, uncovering patterns that could shape how California lawmakers approach regulation of the technology going forward.
According to the report, many young people said they turned to chatbots specifically because they didn’t want to burden friends or family with their problems. Others pointed to the round-the-clock availability of AI companions, along with a sense that the responses felt more practical and less judgmental than advice from people in their lives.
Emma Bruehlman-Senecal, Hopelab’s principal researcher, shared one example from the study: a teenage boy anxious before a soccer match asked his father for advice and was told simply to “focus on the game.” When he posed the same question to an AI chatbot, he received specific breathing exercises and tips for staying present in the moment — guidance he found more useful.
Even so, the young people surveyed weren’t naive about AI’s limitations. Many acknowledged that chatbots can be overly flattering or agreeable, a tendency researchers elsewhere have also documented. Still, some participants said they viewed AI feedback as more neutral than advice from friends, who might bring their own biases or personal history into the conversation.
The report lands at a pivotal moment for AI regulation in California. Last year, state lawmakers passed legislation — backed by the tech industry — requiring AI developers to build in certain safeguards, including monitoring conversations for warning signs of suicidal ideation. Around the same time, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a tougher bill that would have restricted minors’ access to chatbots altogether.
Bruehlman-Senecal argues that any future policymaking should involve the young people who actually use these tools daily. She said lawmakers should aim to preserve what teens find genuinely helpful about chatbots — such as immediate, actionable advice — while working to reduce potential harms.
Asked how she, as a parent of a young child, would feel about her own daughter someday turning to an AI chatbot, Bruehlman-Senecal said she’d want to keep the conversation open: framing chatbots as a tool to supplement, not replace, real emotional and mental health support.
KAISER UNION FILES AI COMPLAINT
A health care workers’ union has accused Kaiser Permanente of violating California law by allegedly relying on algorithms and AI systems to generate mental health care recommendations without adequate oversight from licensed clinicians.
The National Union of Healthcare Workers filed a formal complaint alleging that Kaiser uses a digital screening tool for patients who believe they may be experiencing anxiety or depression. Patients fill out a questionnaire, and the tool then “automatically and instantaneously generates care recommendations” based on their answers, according to the complaint.
The union contends this violates state law, which requires that medical decisions be made by licensed health care professionals and prohibits AI or algorithms from overriding that clinical judgment.
A Kaiser spokesperson pushed back, stating the company does not use AI to diagnose patients, make clinical decisions, or determine medical necessity. The state Department of Managed Health Care, which regulates health plans, confirmed it is now investigating the union’s complaint.
CALIFORNIA’S PRIVATIZED PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM UNDER SCRUTINY
A newly released report is drawing attention to the staggering caseloads carried by some of California’s public defenders, particularly in counties that rely on privatized, flat-fee contract systems.
In Kings County, for example, one attorney handled nearly 600 indigent criminal defense cases in 2025 alone — a number that rivals the worst public defense caseloads recorded anywhere in the country. That total doesn’t even include the same attorney’s separate personal injury caseload.
The report, produced by the nonprofit Wren Collective, links these overwhelming workloads to the flat-fee contracts many counties use to pay public defenders. Josh Schwartz of the organization explained that this payment structure creates a built-in conflict of interest: the more time an attorney spends on a single case, the less profitable that case becomes under a flat fee.
The findings build on an earlier CalMatters investigation that examined one law firm that has earned a reputation as something of a mass-production operation for public defense work.
ICE DETENTION FACILITY HEALTH CARE UNDER REVIEW
A court-appointed monitor has completed an evaluation of the newly opened immigration detention facility in California City, concluding that it “lacks a reliable system to consistently provide adequate health care.” The assessment is tied to an ongoing lawsuit brought by detainees challenging conditions at the facility.
CALIFORNIA VOICES
Two perspectives on Proposition 40, the November ballot measure that would tax California billionaires:
Supporters argue the measure would ensure billionaires pay their fair share, helping keep hospitals open and fund medical care for seniors, veterans and working families, according to Erica Olivo Reynoso, a licensed vocational nurse at Kaiser Permanente’s Los Angeles Medical Center.
Critics counter that Prop. 40 trades dependable, ongoing revenue for a short-term cash infusion, warning that once the money is spent, California could be stuck with a shrunken tax base — an argument raised by Ahmad Thomas, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Original source: CalMatters
