A student begins with, “This might sound silly, but I asked an AI about it.” That opening offers a chance to understand what they were looking for. A dismissive response may end the conversation before the important part arrives.
Ask what the student sought, what the tool said and what they did next. Explore the experience without treating the chatbot as a clinician or its answer as an assessment. The conversation can be curious and firm about limits at the same time.
Start with the need behind the question
Perhaps the student wanted a quick explanation, language for a difficult feeling or a reply at a time when nobody seemed available. Ask which part felt useful and whether any advice felt confusing, pressuring or absolute.
Do not require the student to upload private conversations into another tool. If they choose to discuss an excerpt, use the established privacy and consent practices of your setting. A summary in their own words may be enough to begin.
Separate a reassuring response from a reliable one
A response can sound thoughtful while missing context. Invite the student to identify statements presented as facts, assumptions about people and suggestions for action. Which claims were checked? Which conclusions came entirely from the tool?
The American Psychological Association advises against relying on general-purpose chatbots or wellness apps as replacements for qualified mental health care. Its practitioner guidance encourages professionals to make room for conversations about patients' AI use.
Agree on practical boundaries
Possible discussion topics include keeping identifiable health information out of unapproved tools, checking consequential advice with an appropriate person, and avoiding self-diagnosis from generated text. Adapt the conversation to age, context and professional judgment.
An illustrative agreement might be: “I can use an educational tool to organise study questions. If I am asking it to tell me what condition I have or whether to change treatment, I will bring that question to a qualified professional instead.” This is a discussion aid, not a universal care plan.
Keep Gyanis product roles visible
Gyanis Flow is an AI study workspace. Its explanations can support learning, but it is not a mental health assessment tool. Vibe provides subject-expert sessions, while Aura provides scheduled human wellbeing coaching.
Aura is not psychotherapy, diagnosis or emergency support. Presenting these boundaries honestly is more useful than using the phrase “AI therapist” to describe an educational ecosystem. Schools and families should check each service's current terms, age requirements and privacy information.
Aura offers a scheduled human conversation
Aura's central service is a session with a Gyanis-vetted human coach. Users choose a profile and service, review an available time and price, and follow the booking request. It should be described in those concrete terms rather than as an always-available AI therapist.
The coach feed provides posts, prompts and exercises between sessions. A reader can use reporting and hiding controls. Feed content is general material; it is not a personalised clinical assessment or a promise that a professional is monitoring the reader.
Questions professionals may hear
“It understood me. Does that mean its advice is right?”
Feeling heard matters, but it does not verify a claim. Explore the advice and its consequences with an appropriate professional rather than accepting the tone as evidence.
“Can I use it to prepare questions for our next conversation?”
Discuss whether that narrow use is appropriate, what information should remain private and whether writing the questions directly would work just as well.
A useful first question: “What were you hoping someone would help you with when you opened it?”
Sources
APA: talking with patients about AI; APA health advisory. These prompts do not replace professional assessment or supervision.