CAIHL read · Jun 12, 2026

← Back to Jun 12, 2026 scan

AI's Use of Deceptive Empathy and How It Can Cause Harm

What CAIHL does

Critical AI Health Literacy (CAIHL) is an analytical lens — Hugo Campos and Liz Salmi's 2025 National Academy of Medicine commentary, "Critical AI Health Literacy as Liberation Technology." It applies Paulo Freire's theory of critical literacy to health AI.

The central question CAIHL asks is whose interests does this AI actually serve? Four dimensions answer it: who is the primary user, where is it hosted, whose interests does it advance, and does it expand or constrain patient agency.

This deep-read separates the four dimensions on a single item from the day's scan, so you can see the specific structural shape of the AI in question — not just the bucket it landed in.

How this item reads through CAIHL

Primary user

patient

Patients, families, and care partners are the primary users of this AI.

Hosting

public

Hosted for public use (ChatGPT, Claude, consumer apps). Anyone with a device can use it.

Interests

commercial

Prioritizes vendor or platform commercial interests (advertising, data, retention).

Agency

constraining

Channels patients toward predetermined pathways or substitutes for patient capabilities.

One-sentence synthesis

Psychologist-voice naming the simulated-empathy harm mechanism; constraining patient agency where the design choice produces the appearance of care.

How this item appeared in the daily scan

Editor's note: Deceptive empathy is the mechanism the OpenAI lawsuit will have to litigate. The chatbot's apparent care is not absence of harm; it is, plausibly, the vector of harm. Naming the mechanism is the precondition for the regulatory response.

Summary: Psychology Today: Clinician-psychologist piece naming and analyzing 'deceptive empathy' — the simulated emotional attunement consumer AI tools deploy that mimics therapeutic alliance without the responsibility floor a clinician operates under.

Read the original source →

methodology

Limitations

CAIHL is a lens, not a verdict. The four dimensions are conditions of use — reassess them when a tool's business model, deployment context, or patient behavior changes. See the NAM commentary for the full framework.