In the second Slingshot Experts panel, co-founder Neil Parikh sits down with psychiatrist Dr. Nina Vasan (Stanford), NYU's Matteo Malgaroli, and Ash Clinical Lead Dr. Derrick Hull to discuss Ash's first real-world study, respond directly to its critics, and debate how AI mental health tools should be tested, kept safe, and used well.
• The panel engages critics head-on, reading aloud the tough takes on Ash's first study — including the view that one real-world study "doesn't prove anything" — and agrees more research is needed while defending real-world evidence as a valid complement to trials.
• Ash's real-world study (\~305 users over six weeks, with a 10-week follow-up) showed broad social gains: 72% reported less loneliness, 75% more perceived social support, and about 52% more "objective" support — roughly one additional person to rely on and one extra trip out of the house each week.
• On the RCT critique: randomized trials isolate cause, but their effects often shrink in the messy real world; real-world evidence shows how people actually use a tool. The team frames them as complementary and is collecting six-month follow-up.
• On over-reliance: in the study, use went down as people felt better, not up — and stronger therapeutic-alliance scores predicted better outcomes, not heavier use.
• Why a consumer well-being tool rather than a regulated medical device: device rules force a single "indication," which doesn't fit a flexible tool that helps with anxiety, relationships, parenting, and work — and people wait \~11 years on average to seek mental health help.
