3 ms·

Sure, here is the paper: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/fzvd8 https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/fzvd8 And here is a post from one of the contributors on the

Sure, here is the paper: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/fzvd8 https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/fzvd8 And here is a post from one of the contributors on the research, that summarizes it: https://x.com/Amit_Goldenb/status/1782076346929475602 https://x.com/Amit_Goldenb/status/1782076346929475602

racional 2y ago
Thanks. The paper describes LLM performance on a single, very narrowly prescribed task - compared with (if I am reading correctly) average humans (not trained practicioners in the field). This is of course very, very far from a validation of these models as being on the whole suitable for use in real-life counseling situations. Involving, you know, real people facing a diverse set of mental health situations and risks. Look, it's a fine technical achievement, your site. I'm pretty sure also that what I'm saying above is not news to you, and that you're perfectly aware of the current primitive state of these models. And that you're also aware of the fact that none of technology has been formally vetted or approved by anyone in the public health field. In that sense -- it is really quite irresponsible of you to promote this tool in the way that you're doing it. Especially the language implying this is finished, trusted product ("Trusted AI companion"), and with human-like qualities no less ("is curious, compassionate"). And on top of that, to take people's money for it -- given that these tools can be quite addictive. And you're potentially exploiting people in very difficult situations and with limited financial options. I know you have other disclaimers, but that's what I mean: These disclaimers are useless when they are contradicted by other statements (such as those above) which say basically the opposite. That's why the disclaimers come off as -- doublespeak, basically. You need to really re-think what you're doing here, and why you're doing it.
- remusnegrota 2y ago
  Thank you for your view and for the civilized debate. Still, you are steering it to extremes with arguments such as: " And you're potentially exploiting people in very difficult situations and with limited financial options." I have to disagree with you on that, you are basically comparing my product with gambling, which is unfair. That being said, these kinds of discussions, in general, have a net benefit in the world.

racional 2y ago

Thanks. The paper describes LLM performance on a single, very narrowly prescribed task - compared with (if I am reading correctly) average humans (not trained practicioners in the field). This is of course very, very far from a validation of these models as being on the whole suitable for use in real-life counseling situations. Involving, you know, real people facing a diverse set of mental health situations and risks. Look, it's a fine technical achievement, your site. I'm pretty sure also that what I'm saying above is not news to you, and that you're perfectly aware of the current primitive state of these models. And that you're also aware of the fact that none of technology has been formally vetted or approved by anyone in the public health field. In that sense -- it is really quite irresponsible of you to promote this tool in the way that you're doing it. Especially the language implying this is finished, trusted product ("Trusted AI companion"), and with human-like qualities no less ("is curious, compassionate"). And on top of that, to take people's money for it -- given that these tools can be quite addictive. And you're potentially exploiting people in very difficult situations and with limited financial options. I know you have other disclaimers, but that's what I mean: These disclaimers are useless when they are contradicted by other statements (such as those above) which say basically the opposite. That's why the disclaimers come off as -- doublespeak, basically. You need to really re-think what you're doing here, and why you're doing it.

remusnegrota 2y ago
Thank you for your view and for the civilized debate. Still, you are steering it to extremes with arguments such as: " And you're potentially exploiting people in very difficult situations and with limited financial options." I have to disagree with you on that, you are basically comparing my product with gambling, which is unfair. That being said, these kinds of discussions, in general, have a net benefit in the world.