Yeah I'd take this with a HUGE grain of salt: Next, when examining whether responses written by ChatGPT and therapists were rated higher, lower, or equal i

Yeah I'd take this with a HUGE grain of salt: Next, when examining whether responses written by ChatGPT and therapists were rated higher, lower, or equal in line with the common factors of therapy, we found a large and reliable difference (d = 1.63, 95% CI [1.49, 1.78]) favoring ChatGPT. Given that common factors undergird and act as a mechanism for much of the evidence-based treatment literature [27, 28], and the direction and size of the effects, consulting with ChatGPT may be a way to improve declining or stagnating effect sizes within the evidence-based clinical psychological sciences [34, 35]. The second aim is likely to be critiqued for several reasons. First, these are responses to therapy-like vignettes and may not generalize to actual therapy. These responses represent a hypothetical “snapshot” of therapy. Second, vignettes were based on couple therapy scenarios and the results might not generalize to individual therapy. Third, the outcome measured was brief and might not fit neatly into varying definitions of what is (or is not) therapeutic. Other criticisms might be with the clinician sampling plan, how responses were selected for comparison, or the therapist group. Future work should include clinicians from different backgrounds, modalities, and theoretical orientations to solidify these findings. Including more diverse therapists may produce responses perceived as more therapeutic than those written by a large language model.