Coco, a company providing mental health services to teens and adults, has come under fire for conducting an experiment in which people seeking mental health advice online were given answers by an AI without their knowledge. The participants were led to believe that they were receiving advice from human volunteers.

Critics have raised concerns about informed consent, stating that the participants were not fully informed about the nature of the study and were thus unable to give their informed consent. Informed consent is a fundamental principle of ethical research and requires that participants be provided with enough information about a study or experiment so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate.

The company has defended the experiment, stating that they do not plan to publish the study. However, this does not absolve them of ethical responsibilities related to informed consent. Even if the study is not going to be published, the results and findings of the study may be used internally by the company and can have an impact on the participants or on other people.

The failure to obtain informed consent is a serious ethical violation, and the company should take steps to address this issue and ensure that all future research is conducted in accordance with ethical principles. This incident raises a broader question of the ethical implications of AI in the field of mental health and the need for transparency and informed consent in AI-assisted mental health services.