J Med Internet Res. 2026 May 11. doi: 10.2196/93349. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-themed delusions are increasingly observed in psychotic-spectrum disorders, reflecting the incorporation of contemporary sociotechnical elements into delusional systems. While prior research has examined the phenomenology of technology-related delusions, it remains unclear whether the structural role of AI within these belief systems (particularly when AI occupies a central, organizing function) is associated with increased violence risk or more restrictive forensic outcomes. Given the importance of dynamic clinical factors such as insight and treatment adherence in forensic risk assessment, clarifying the role of AI centrality has clinical and legal relevance.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether centrality of AI within psychotic delusional systems is associated with (1) violence toward others and (2) judicial findings of significant public safety risk in forensic psychiatric decisions.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using jurisprudential data from the Société québécoise d’information juridique (SOQUIJ) database, including all publicly available Quebec tribunal and court decisions up to December 31, 2025. Eligible cases involved psychotic-spectrum disorders with explicit AI-related delusional content and judicial consideration of dangerousness or disposition. The unit of analysis was the judicial decision. A total of 29 judgments were included. AI centrality was coded as central (n=15) or non-central (n=14) using a structured, text-based framework. Primary outcome was documented violence toward others; secondary outcomes included direct AI-violence attribution and judicial findings of significant public safety risk. Covariates included lack of insight, treatment nonadherence, substance use disorder, and prior violence history. Data were extracted through full-text review using a standardized coding grid. Bivariate associations were analyzed using Fisher exact tests (α=.05), and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Exploratory logistic regression models were performed to assess adjusted associations.
RESULTS: Violence toward others was documented in 20/29 cases (69.0%; 95% CI 50.3-83.1). AI centrality was not significantly associated with violence (12/15 [80.0%; 95% CI 54.8-93.0] vs 8/14 [57.1%; 95% CI 32.6-78.6]; OR 2.91, 95% CI 0.63-13.45; P=.26). However, AI centrality was strongly associated with direct AI-violence attribution (9/15 [60.0%] vs 2/14 [14.3%]; OR 9.00, 95% CI 1.48-54.6; P=.014). Judicial findings of significant public safety risk were more frequent in AI-central cases (13/15 [86.7%] vs 9/14 [64.3%]; OR 3.60, 95% CI 0.63-20.5; P=.24), although not statistically significant. AI-central cases demonstrated higher prevalence of impaired insight (13/15 [86.7%] vs 8/14 [57.1%]; OR 4.89, 95% CI 0.79-30.1) and treatment nonadherence (9/15 [60.0%] vs 4/14 [28.6%]; OR 3.75, 95% CI 0.74-18.9).
CONCLUSIONS: AI centrality within delusional systems appears to be not independently associated with increased violence toward others but was strongly associated with AI-based attribution of behavior and markers of epistemic vulnerability, including impaired insight and treatment nonadherence. This study is innovative in operationalizing the structural role of AI within delusions using real-world forensic data, rather than focusing solely on thematic content. Unlike prior phenomenological or case-based research, it integrates jurisprudential analysis with quantitative risk modeling. These findings suggest that AI-themed delusions function as structural organizers of meaning and agency rather than novel criminogenic risk factors. Clinically and legally, this underscores the importance of prioritizing dynamic risk variables over thematic novelty, informing more proportionate forensic decision-making and risk assessment in an era of rapidly evolving digital environments.
PMID:42109215 | DOI:10.2196/93349