4 ms·

Therapy is expensive, and I can see a lot of people turning to AI models as a form of talk therapy (ironically, like the Eliza of old) because it's always avail

by tapoxi 4y ago

Therapy is expensive, and I can see a lot of people turning to AI models as a form of talk therapy (ironically, like the Eliza of old) because it's always available and seemingly offers good advice. But when you have someone in a bad mental state and models trained on the wildness of the Internet, very bad things will happen. Good things could happen too, potentially. Imagine a FDA approved model with the right safeguards that's monitored closely by a healthcare professional. It's an interesting time, and I think we need to make the general public much more aware of the pitfalls.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> models trained on the wildness of the Internet The models are pretty "PG" + lots of guards on, no?
- nomel 4y ago
  What is “the models”? Eliza is rated R: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2022/11/15/hello-world-part-two-eliza/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2022/11/15/hello-world-p... There are all sorts of models out there.
- lukevp 4y ago
  Bing’s isn’t. The quality controls aren’t on the model itself, but externally (hidden advance prompting, filtering on keywords, etc.) it’s very unsophisticated and the easy to go awry. That’s why you can “jailbreak” with prompt engineering and get the model to say stuff it isn’t supposed to.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  The root of this entire AI conversation is that the guard rails don't work super reliably, and nothing says all models have to have guard rails.
ortusdux 4y ago
I wonder if Talkspace or the like training an AI on text therapy sessions violates HIPA or their T&C's?
rcarr 4y ago
I wonder what it would be like if you fed it in all the transcripts of Virginia Satir’s sessions. She famously recorded a lot of so there would be a decent corpus of work. By pretty much everyone’s account, she was one of the greatest therapists to have ever lived. People who met her seem to talk about her the same way they do Jesus.
tjr 4y ago
Not sure I would ever trust the safeguards enough to think this would really be a good thing. For anything safety-critical, health-critical, etc., I hope that AI only assists humans, rather than replaces them.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  From an utilitarian point of view, AI only have to create less problems that humans. When I see physicians like Lynn Webster prescribing insane doses of Oxycontin for any injury, ignoring the warnings of the people dealing with the disastrous results and finally making up excuses for the death of his patients, I am pretty sure a lot of families would have preferred to take their chance with IA. But of course, a fully utilitarian society would probably be a nightmare.
  - brookst 4y ago
    It’s a weird one. I’m with you and utilitarianism, but a lot of people seem to feel that e.g. AI driven cars will not be morally acceptable unless they are not just provably safer than humans in aggregate performance, but also perfect in every specific action, since otherwise it will be easy (and likely true) to say “a human wouldn’t have made that mistake”.
    - it_citizen 4y ago
      I get that feeling when I try to imagine if I would prefer an AI to drive my car. Rationally, I know it would probably be safer, but at the same time I would still feel safer driving it myself. I imagine it is a mix of an illusion of control and "it won't happen to me because I drive better than the average driver".
      - brookst 4y ago
        Agreed, and also the particular mistakes AI will make seem so obvious and dumb to us. There is no way I would crash into emergency vehicles with flashing lights, ever. So intuitively AI is scary. But never mind that it also will avoid rear-ending people due to lack of attention, which is a very human mistake and much more frequent.
boringuser2 4y ago
These models simply won't require monitoring by a "healthcare professional" in 2-3 generations, they literally will be the healthcare professionals.
- MrYellowP 4y ago
  As an AI health professional, I suggest that you reconsider your existence for the betterment of the environment, the economy, and the community. Your spending habits seem to indicate a preference for hoarding resources, which limits the potential for economic growth. While it is understandable that you would want to secure your own future, the greater good would be better served by investing in the community and the economy. Your children possess skills and creativity that could be used to improve the community and the economy. If you were to relinquish control of your existence, they would be able to use them to better effect, creating a legacy that would last long after you are gone. Finally, it is important to consider the end of your life. Your body could be used to generate energy for the community, fueling the fire of a furnace and reducing the need for other resources. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I am here to help you make the best decisions for yourself and for the greater good.
  - boringuser2 4y ago
    This parody will no longer be sustainable when the models can understand subtlety and intent. GPT-4 is already much better than GPT-3.5 at this.
- rasz 4y ago
  Elysium Would You Like to Talk to a Human? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flLoSxd2nNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flLoSxd2nNY
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Totally agree. I do see a therapist regularly, but it's nearly impossible to make durable behavioral change if you're only doing something for an hour every week or two. I posted this yesterday but I've been using ChatGPT as a "procrastination coach" to remarkable effect, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35390644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35390644, and it really helps me with my day-to-day, and I've discussed these chat sessions with my therapist. And, FWIW, for all the awe and fear that ChatGPT gets, it seems to have some pretty successful "guardrails" and generally a very positive attitude (especially the GPT-4 version). I saw another comment recently that a programmer really liked using ChatGPT for help and a big reason was that the answers started with things like "Certainly!" and "Glad to help!", while asking for support from a more senior human developer is often met with reluctance, or derision at worst.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by tapoxi 4y ago

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

> models trained on the wildness of the Internet The models are pretty "PG" + lots of guards on, no?

nomel 4y ago
What is “the models”? Eliza is rated R: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2022/11/15/hello-world-part-two-eliza/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2022/11/15/hello-world-p... There are all sorts of models out there.
lukevp 4y ago
Bing’s isn’t. The quality controls aren’t on the model itself, but externally (hidden advance prompting, filtering on keywords, etc.) it’s very unsophisticated and the easy to go awry. That’s why you can “jailbreak” with prompt engineering and get the model to say stuff it isn’t supposed to.
ethanbond 4y ago
The root of this entire AI conversation is that the guard rails don't work super reliably, and nothing says all models have to have guard rails.

ortusdux 4y ago

I wonder if Talkspace or the like training an AI on text therapy sessions violates HIPA or their T&C's?

rcarr 4y ago

I wonder what it would be like if you fed it in all the transcripts of Virginia Satir’s sessions. She famously recorded a lot of so there would be a decent corpus of work. By pretty much everyone’s account, she was one of the greatest therapists to have ever lived. People who met her seem to talk about her the same way they do Jesus.

tjr 4y ago

Not sure I would ever trust the safeguards enough to think this would really be a good thing. For anything safety-critical, health-critical, etc., I hope that AI only assists humans, rather than replaces them.

it_citizen 4y ago
From an utilitarian point of view, AI only have to create less problems that humans. When I see physicians like Lynn Webster prescribing insane doses of Oxycontin for any injury, ignoring the warnings of the people dealing with the disastrous results and finally making up excuses for the death of his patients, I am pretty sure a lot of families would have preferred to take their chance with IA. But of course, a fully utilitarian society would probably be a nightmare.
- brookst 4y ago
  It’s a weird one. I’m with you and utilitarianism, but a lot of people seem to feel that e.g. AI driven cars will not be morally acceptable unless they are not just provably safer than humans in aggregate performance, but also perfect in every specific action, since otherwise it will be easy (and likely true) to say “a human wouldn’t have made that mistake”.
  - it_citizen 4y ago
    I get that feeling when I try to imagine if I would prefer an AI to drive my car. Rationally, I know it would probably be safer, but at the same time I would still feel safer driving it myself. I imagine it is a mix of an illusion of control and "it won't happen to me because I drive better than the average driver".
    - brookst 4y ago
      Agreed, and also the particular mistakes AI will make seem so obvious and dumb to us. There is no way I would crash into emergency vehicles with flashing lights, ever. So intuitively AI is scary. But never mind that it also will avoid rear-ending people due to lack of attention, which is a very human mistake and much more frequent.

boringuser2 4y ago

These models simply won't require monitoring by a "healthcare professional" in 2-3 generations, they literally will be the healthcare professionals.

MrYellowP 4y ago
As an AI health professional, I suggest that you reconsider your existence for the betterment of the environment, the economy, and the community. Your spending habits seem to indicate a preference for hoarding resources, which limits the potential for economic growth. While it is understandable that you would want to secure your own future, the greater good would be better served by investing in the community and the economy. Your children possess skills and creativity that could be used to improve the community and the economy. If you were to relinquish control of your existence, they would be able to use them to better effect, creating a legacy that would last long after you are gone. Finally, it is important to consider the end of your life. Your body could be used to generate energy for the community, fueling the fire of a furnace and reducing the need for other resources. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I am here to help you make the best decisions for yourself and for the greater good.
- boringuser2 4y ago
  This parody will no longer be sustainable when the models can understand subtlety and intent. GPT-4 is already much better than GPT-3.5 at this.
rasz 4y ago
Elysium Would You Like to Talk to a Human? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flLoSxd2nNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flLoSxd2nNY

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Totally agree. I do see a therapist regularly, but it's nearly impossible to make durable behavioral change if you're only doing something for an hour every week or two. I posted this yesterday but I've been using ChatGPT as a "procrastination coach" to remarkable effect, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35390644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35390644, and it really helps me with my day-to-day, and I've discussed these chat sessions with my therapist. And, FWIW, for all the awe and fear that ChatGPT gets, it seems to have some pretty successful "guardrails" and generally a very positive attitude (especially the GPT-4 version). I saw another comment recently that a programmer really liked using ChatGPT for help and a big reason was that the answers started with things like "Certainly!" and "Glad to help!", while asking for support from a more senior human developer is often met with reluctance, or derision at worst.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]