18 ms·
'It cannot provide nuance': UK experts warn AI therapy chatbots are not safe
- kurtis_reed 1y ago[flagged]
- chownie 1y agoIn the same way a doctor might step in on your sick plan to give yourself a piercing with your keychain, yeah. They probably should be saying it.
- julienreszka 1y ago[flagged]
- booleandilemma 1y ago[flagged]
- bigmattystyles 1y agoThe problem is they are cheap and immediately available.
- distalx 1y agoIt just feels a bit uncertain trusting our feelings to AI we don't truly understand.
- jobigoud 1y agoYou don't truly understand the human therapist either.
- codr7 1y agoYou do however have a hell of a lot more in common with them than with a profit driven algorithm that even its creators have no clue how it really works.
- squigz 1y ago> even its creators have no clue how it really works. What does this mean?
- codr7 1y agoNot having that discussion, go argue with someone else.
- AaronAPU 1y agoThe thing about all these arguments is they all apply to humans. We are all an opaque mess of conflicts of interests, inconsistencies and bias. Not sure if people aren’t thinking that through or if they’re vastly overestimating the trustworthiness and transparency of your average professional human.
- CrimsonRain 1y agoyou have no clue how "them" work but you do know they are driven by profit as well.
- 52-6F-62 1y ago
- kbelder 1y agoI think a lot of human therapists are unsafe. We may just need to start comparing success rates and liability concerns. It's kind of like deciding when unassisted driving is 'good enough'.
- timewizard 1y agoThe therapist controls the extent of the relationship which determines profits. A disinterested third party should be involved.
- th0ma5 1y agoThat's not exactly a following reasoning to use for LLMs ... In automation studies things are most dangerous just before full automation due to bias. Why tap the brakes when surly the car will do it on its own when that isn't a guarantee.
- HPsquared 1y agoSometimes an "unsafe" option is better than the alternative of nothing at all.
- tredre3 1y agoSometimes an "unsafe" option is not better than the alternative of nothing at all.
- Y_Y 1y agoSounds like we need more information than safe/not safe to make a sensible decision! This is something that bugs me about medical ethics, that it's more important not to cause any harm than it is to prevent any.
- bildung 1y agoI you look at the horrible things that happened in medical history, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study it's pretty clear why the ethics care more about not causing harm...
- justlikereddit 1y ago[flagged]
- jrapdx3 1y agoActually, concern about doing harm is central to current concepts of medical ethics. The idea may be ancient but still highly relevant. Ethics declare a primary obligation of healers is "above all do no harm". That of course doesn't exclude doing good, being helpful, using skills and technologies to produce favorable outcomes. It does mean that healers must exercise due vigilance for unintended adverse consequences of therapies, let alone knowingly providing services that cause harm. The problem with "safe/not safe" designation is simply that these states are more often than not indistinct. Or put another way, it depends on subtle contextual attributes that are hard to discern. Furthermore individual differences can make it difficult to predict safety of applying a procedure. As a result healers should be cautious in approaching problems. Definitely prevention is better than cure, it's simply that relatively little is known about preventing burdensome conditions. Exercising what is known is a high priority.
- hy555 1y agoThrowaway account. My ex partner was involved in a study which said these things were not ok. They were paid not to publish by an undisclosed party. That's how bad it has got. Edit: the study compared therapist outcomes to AI outcomes to placebo outcomes. Therapists in this field performed slightly better than placebo, which is pretty terrible. The AI outcomes performed much worse than placebo which is very terrible.
- cube00 1y agoThe amount of free money sloshing around the AI space is ridiculous at the moment.
- sorenjan 1y agoWhat did they use for placebo? Talking to somebody without education, or not talking to anybody at all?
- hy555 1y agoNot talking to anyone at all.
- zargon 1y agoWhat did they do then? If they didn't do anything, how can it be considered a placebo?
- risyachka 1y agoDoes it matter? The point is AI made it worse.
- phren0logy 1y agoIt's called a "waitlist" control group, and it's not intended to represent placebo. Or at least, it shouldn't be billed that way. It's not an ideal study design, but it's common enough that you could use it to compare one therapy to another based on their results vs a waitlist control. Placebo control for psychotherapy is tricky and more expensive, and can be hard to get the funding to do it properly.
- Buttons840 1y agoInteracting with a LLM (especially one running locally) can do something a therapist cannot--provide an honest interaction outside the capitalist framework. The AI has its limitations, but it is an entity just being itself doing the best it can, without expecting anything in return.
- tuyguntn 1y agoI think you are right, on one hand we have human beings with own emotions in life and based on their own emotions they might impact negatively others emotion on the other hand probabilistic/non-deterministic model, which can give 5 different advises if you ask 5 times. So who do you trust? Until determinicity of LLM models gets improved and we can debug/fix them while keeping their deterministic behavior intact with new fixes, I would rely on human therapists.
- delichon 1y agoHow is it possible for a statistical model calculated primarily from the market outputs of a capitalist society to provide an interaction outside of the capitalist framework? That's like claiming to have a mirror that does not reflect your flaws.
- Buttons840 1y agoThe same way an interaction with a pure bread dog can be. The dog may have come from a capitalistic system (dogs are bred for money unfortunately), but your personal interactions with the dog are not about money. I've never spoken to a therapist without paying $150 an hour up front. They were helpful, but they were never "in my life"--just a transaction--a worth while transaction, but still a transaction.
- germinalphrase 1y agoIt’s also very common for people to get therapy at free or minimal cost (<$50) when utilizing insurance. Long term relationships (off and on) are also quite common. Whether or not the therapist takes insurance is a choice, and it’s true that they almost always make more by requiring cash payment instead.
- drdunce 1y agoAs with many things in relation to technology, perhaps we simply need informed user choice and responsible deployment. We could start by not using "Artificial Intelligence" - that makes it sound like a some infallible omniscient being with endless compassion and wisdom that can always be trusted. It's not intelligent, it's a large language model, a convoluted next word prediction machine. It's a fun trick, but shouldn't be trusted with Python code, let alone life advice. Armed with that simple bit of information, the user is free to choose how they use it for help, whether it be medical, legal, work etc.
- trial3 1y ago> simply need informed user choice and responsible deployment the problem is that "responsible deployment" feels extremely at odds with, say, needing to justify a $300B valuation
- EA-3167 1y agoWhat we need is the same thing we've needed for a long time now, ethical standards applied across the whole industry in the same way that many other professions are regulated. If civil engineers acted the way that software engineers routinely do, they'd never work again, and rightly so.
- immibis 1y agohttp://thecodelesscode.com/case/118 http://thecodelesscode.com/case/118
- drdunce 1y agoAre you suggesting working flexibly (maybe "agile"), is at odds with working ethically?
- immibis 1y ago> If civil engineers acted the way that software engineers routinely do, they'd never work again, and rightly so. This part is what I take issue with. Software is simply different from buildings.
- lurk2 1y agoI tried Replika years ago after reading a Guardian article about it. The story passed it off as an AI model that had been adapted from one a woman had programmed to remember her deceased friend using text messages he had sent her. It ended up being a gamified version of Smarter Child with a slightly longer memory span (4 messages instead of 2) that constantly harangued the user to divulge preferences that were then no-doubt used for marketing purposes. I thought I must be doing something wrong, because people on the replika subreddit were constantly talking about how their replika agent was developing its own personality (I saw no evidence at any point that it had the capacity to do this). Almost all of these people were openly in (romantic) love with these agents. This was in 2017 or thereabouts, so only a few years after Spike Jonze’s Her came out. From what I understand the app is now primarily pornographic (a trajectory that a naiver, younger me never saw coming). I mostly use Copilot for writing Python scripts, but I have had conversations with it. If the model was running locally on your own machine, I can see how it would be effective for people experiencing some sort of emotional crisis. Anyone using a Meta AI for therapy is going to learn the same hard lesson that the people who trusted 23 and Me are currently learning.
- mrbombastic 1y ago“I thought I must be doing something wrong, because people on the replika subreddit were constantly talking about how their replika agent was developing its own personality (I saw no evidence at any point that it had the capacity to do this).” People really like to anthropomorphize any object with even the most basic communication capabilities and most people have no concept of the distance between parroting phrases and a full on human consciousness. In the 90s Furbys were a popular toy that said started off speaking furbish and then eventually spoke some (maybe 20?) human phrases, many people were absolutely convinced you could teach them to talk and learn like a human and that they had essentially bought a very intelligent pet. The NSA even banned them for a time because they thought they were recording and learning from surroundings despite that being completely untrue. Point being this is going to get much worse now that LLMs have gotten a whole lot better at mimicking human conversations and there is incentive for companies to overstate capabilities.
- trod1234 1y ago
- James_K 1y agoRespectfully, no sh*t. I've talked to a few of these things, and they are feckless yes-men. It's honestly creepy, they sound like they want something from you. Which I suppose they do: continual use of their services. I know a few people who use these things for therapy (I think it is the most popular use now) and I'm downright horrified at the sort of stuff they say. I even know a person who uses the AI to date. They will paste conversations from apps into the AI and ask it how to respond. I've set a rule for myself; I will never speak to machines. Sure, right now it's obvious that they are trying to inflate my ego and keep using the service, but one day they might get good enough to trick me. I already find social media algorithms quite addictive, and so I have minimise them in my life. I shudder to think what a trained agent like these may be capable of.
- 52-6F-62 1y agoI’ve also experimented with them in that capacity. I like to know first hand. I play the skeptic but I tend to feed the beast a little blood in order to understand it, at least. As a result, I agree with you. It gives me pause when I stop to think about anyone without more context placing so much trust in these. And the developers engaged in the “industry” of it demanding blind faith and full payment.
- emptyfile 1y agoThe idea of people talking to LLMs in this way genuinely disturbs me.
- rdm_blackhole 1y agoI think the core of the problem here is that the people who turn to chat bots for therapy sometimes have no choice as getting access to a human therapist is simply not possible without spending a lot of money or waiting 6 months before a spot becomes available. Which begs the question, why do so many people currently need therapy? Is it social media? Economic despair? Or a combination of factors?
- HaZeust 1y agoI always liked the theory that we're living in an age where all of our needs can be reasonably met, and we now have enough time to think - in general. We're not working 12 hour days on a field, we're not stalking prey for 5 miles, we have adequate time in our day-to-day to think about things - and ponder - and reflect; and the ability to do so leads to thoughts and epiphanies in people that therapy helps with. We also have more information at our disposal than ever, and can see new perspectives and ideas to combat and cope with - that one previously didn't need to consider or encounter. We've also stigmatized a lot of the things that folks previously used to cope (tobacco, alcohol), and have loosened our stigma on mental health and the management thereof.
- mrweasel 1y ago> we have adequate time in our day-to-day to think about things - and ponder - and reflect; I'd disagree. If you worked in the fields, you have plenty of time to think. We fill out every waking hour of our day, leaving no time to ponder or reflect. Many can't even find time to workout and if they do they listen to a podcast during their workout. That's why so many ideas come to us in the shower, it's the only place left where we don't fill out minds with impressions.
- 52-6F-62 1y agoIndeed. I had way more time to think working a factory kine than I have had in any other white collar role.
- 1y ago
- j45 1y agoWhere the experts are the ones who's incomes would be threatened, there is likely some merit in what they're saying, but also some digital literacy skills. I don't know that AI "advisory" chatbots can replace humans. Could they help an individual organize their thoughts for more productive time with professionals? Probably. Could such tech help individuals learn about different terminology, their usage and how to think about it? Probably. Could there be .. a net results of spending fewer hours (and cost if the case) for the same progress? And be able to make it further with advice into improvement? Maybe the baseline of advisory expertise in any field exists more around the beginner stage than not.
- codr7 1y agoYou see the same thing with coding. People with actual experience and enough of a perspective to see the problems are ignored because obviously they're just afraid to lose their jobs. Which is not true, it's not even on my list of things that I should be aware of. Experience matters, that's something we seem to be forgetting fast.
- j45 1y agoSometimes it’s leadership and managements job to not understand the problem.
- phreno 1y ago[flagged]
- pavel_lishin 1y agoA recent Garbage Day newsletter spoke about this as well, worth reading: https://www.garbageday.email/p/this-is-what-chatgpt-is-actually-for https://www.garbageday.email/p/this-is-what-chatgpt-is-actua...
- ilaksh 1y ago[flagged]
- timewizard 1y ago> 2023 is ancient history in the LLM space. Okay, what specifically has improved in that time, which would allay the doctors specific concerns? > do certain core aspects And not others? Is there a delineated list of such failings in the current set of products? > given the right prompts and framework A flamethrower is perfectly safe given the right training and support. In the wrong hands it's likely to be a complete and total disaster in record short time. > a weak prompt that was not written by a subject matter expert So how do end users ever get to use a tool like this?
- ilaksh 1y agoThe biggest thing that has improved is the intelligence of the models. The leading models are much more intelligent and robust. Still brittle in some ways, but totally capable of giving CBT advise. The same way end users ever get to use a tool. Open source or an online service, for example.
- simplyinfinity 1y agoEven today, leading LLMS Claude 3.7 and ChatGPT 4, take your questions as "you've made mistake, fix it" instead of answering the question. People consider a much broader context of the situation, your body language, facial expressions, and can come up with unusual solutions to specific situations and can explore vastly more things than an LLM. And the thing when it comes to therapy is, a real therapist doesn't have to be prompted and can auto adjust to you without your explicit say so. They're not overly affirming, can stop you from doing things and say no to you. LLMs are the opposite of that. Also, as a lay person how do i know the right prompts for <llm of the week> to work correctly? Don't get me wrong, i would love for AI to be on par or better than a real life therapist, but we're not there yet, and i would advise everyone against using AI for therapy.
- ilaksh 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deadbabe 1y agoI used ChatGPT for therapy and it seems fine, I feel like it helped, and I have plenty of things fucked up about myself. Can’t be much worse than other forms of “therapy” that people chase.
- bitwize 1y agoI dunno, man, M-x doctor made me take a real hard long look at my life.
- more_corn 1y agoBut it’s probably better than no therapy at all.
- sheepscreek 1y agoThat’s fair but there’s another nuance that they can’t solve for. Cost and availability. AI is not a substitute for traditional therapy, but it offers an 80% benefit at a fraction of the cost. It could be used to supplement therapy, for the periods between sessions. The biggest risk is with privacy. Meta could not be trusted knowing what you’re going to wear or eat. Now imagine them knowing your deepest darkest secrets. The advertising business model does not gel well with providing mental health support. Subscription (with privacy guarantees) is the way to go.
- sarchertech 1y agoDoes it offer 80% of the benefit? An AI could match what a human therapist would say 80% (or 99%) of the time and still provide negative benefit. Therapy seems like the last place an LLM would be beneficial because it’s very hard to keep an LLM from telling you what you want to hear. I can see anyway you could guarantee that a chatbot cause severe damage to a vulnerable patient by supporting their neurosis. We’re not anywhere close to an LLM which is trained to be supportive and understanding in tone but will never affirm your irrational fears, insecurities, and delusions.
- pitched 1y agoSometimes, the process of gathering our thoughts enough to article them into a prompt is where the benefit is. AI as the rubber duck has a lot of value. Understanding that this is what’s needed vs. something deeper, is beyond the scope of what AI can handle.
- sarchertech 1y agoAnd that’s fine as long as the person using it has a sophisticated understanding of the technology and a company isn’t selling it as a “therapist”. When an AI therapist from a health startup confirms that a mentally disturbed person is indeed hearing voices from God, or an insecure teenager uses meta AI as a therapist because Mark Zuckerberg said they should and it agrees with them that yes they are unloveable, then we have a problem.
- Xcelerate 1y agoI have two lines of thought on this: 1) Chatbots are never going to be perceived as safe or effective as humans by default, primarily due to human fiat. Professionals like counselors (and lawyers, doctors, software engineers, etc.) will always claim that an LLM cannot do their job, namely because acknowledging such threatens their livelihood. Determining whether LLMs genuinely provide therapeutic value to humans would require rigorous, carefully controlled experiments conducted over many years. 2) Chatbots definitely cannot replace human therapists in their current state. That much seems quite obvious to me for various reasons already argued well by others on here. But I had to highlight point #1 as devil's advocate, because adopting the mindset that "humans are inherently better by default" due to some magical or scientifically unjustifiable reason will prevent forward progress. The goal is to eliminate the (quite reasonable) fear people have of eventually losing their job to AI by enacting societal change now rather than denying into perpetuity that chatbots are necessarily inferior, at which point everyone will in fact lose their jobs because we had no plan in place.
- senordevnyc 1y agoAgreed. Also, LLMs are already better than 80% of therapists. I don’t think most people understand the delta between a good therapist and a bad one, and how few really are very good.
- HPsquared 1y agoThe other rhetorical hazard is to insist that the new thing has to be a 1:1 replacement for a human therapist in the system we have currently. Who's to say it can't take a different form? There are so many ways a text generator could be used for therapeutic purposes.
- cmsj 1y agoThe fact that you (correctly) called it a text generator, should tell you everything you need to know about why it can't replace a skilled human who takes the time to genuinely understand and empathise with you.
- 1y ago
- jdietrich 1y agoIn the UK (and many other jurisdictions outside the US), psychotherapy is completely unregulated. Literally anyone can advertise their services as a psychotherapist or counsellor, regardless of qualifications, experience or their suitability to work with potentially vulnerable people. Compared to that status quo, I'm not sure that LLMs are meaningfully more risky - unlike a human, at least it can't physically assault you. https://www.bacp.co.uk/news/news-from-bacp/2020/6-march-government-update-on-statutory-regulation-of-counsellors-and-psychotherapists/ https://www.bacp.co.uk/news/news-from-bacp/2020/6-march-gove... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/19/psychotherapists-in-england-must-be-regulated-experts-say-after-abuse-claims-rise https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/19/psychotherap...
- pornel 1y agoUK doesn't protect the term psychotherapy, but there's a distinction between services of counsellors and (regulated) psychologists. For counselling, people are encouraged to choose counsellors accredited by professional orgs like BACP.
- jdietrich 1y ago"Psychologist" is not a protected title and anyone can use it. "Clinical psychologist" is a protected title, and one that requires an extremely high level of training and very strict professional standards. I imagine that the overwhelming majority of the population are completely oblivious to this distinction. The BACP's standards really aren't very high, as you can qualify for membership after a one-year part-time course and a few weeks of work experience. Their disciplinary procedures are, in my opinion, almost entirely ineffectual. They undertake no meaningful monitoring of accredited members, relying solely on complaints from members of the public. Out of tens of thousands of registered members, only a single-digit number are subject to disciplinary action every year. The findings of the few disciplinary hearings they do actually conduct suggest to me that they are perfectly happy to allow lazy, feckless and incompetent practitioners to remain on their register, with only a perfunctory slap on the wrist. BACP membership is of course entirely voluntary and in no way necessary in order to practice as a counsellor or psychotherapist. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/news-and-events/blog/2023/understanding-the-regulation-of-psychologists/ https://www.hcpc-uk.org/news-and-events/blog/2023/understand... https://www.bacp.co.uk/about-us/protecting-the-public/professional-conduct/notices/ https://www.bacp.co.uk/about-us/protecting-the-public/profes...
- caseyy 1y agoI know many pro-LLM people here are very smart, but sometimes it's wise to heed the words of world-renowned experts on a subject. Otherwise, you may end up defending this and it's really foolish: > “Seriously, good for you for standing up for yourself and taking control of your own life,” it reportedly responded to a user, who claimed they had stopped taking their medication and had left their family because they were “responsible for the radio signals coming in through the walls”.
- mvdtnz 1y agoAs much as I tend to defer to experts, you must also be weary of experts whose very livelihoods are at risk. They may not have your interests at heart.
- krainboltgreene 1y agoHell yeah, rail against those profiteering…therapists. Man I hate this modern shift of “actually anyone who is an expert is also trying to deceive me”. Extremely healthy shit for a civilization.
- mvdtnz 1y agoIs there something about therapists that makes them inherently noble and not prone to the same incentives as everyone else?
- 63 1y agoThe implication was that the low salary selects for people who value helping people more than they value money.
- zahlman 1y agoIndeed says that therapists in Toronto, Canada make about CAD $55/hour. That's not FAANG level nor what you'd expect for an MD, but it's not what I'd call low, either. That said, I certainly don't see therapists as profiteering, in the sense of trying to convince people to pay for therapy they don't need. They might plausibly feel threatened by AI, but they'd absolutely be justified in calling out examples like those in TFA.
- citizenkeen 1y agoLook, make the companies offering AI therapy carry medical malpractice insurance at the same risk as human therapists. If they tell someone to go off their meds, let a jury see those transcripts and see if the company still thinks that’s profitable and feasible.
- miki123211 1y agoSo here's my nuanced take on this: 1. The effects of AI should not be compared with traditional therapy, instead, they should be compared with receiving no therapy. There are many people who can't get therapy, for many reasons, mostly financial or familial (domestic abuse / controlling parents). Even for those who can get it, their therapist isn't infinitely flexible when it comes to time and usually requires appointments, which doesn't help with immediate problems like "my girlfriend just dumped me" or "my boss just berated me in front of my team for something I worked 16-hour days on." AI will increase the amount of therapy that exists in the world, probably by orders of magnitude, just like the record player increased the amount of music listening or the jet plane increased the amount of intercontinental transportation. The right questions to ask here are more like "how many suicides would an AI therapist prevent, compared to the number of suicides it would induce?", or "are all human therapists licensed in country / state X more competent than a good AI?" 2. When a person dies of suicide, their cause of death is, and will always be, listed as "suicide", not "AI overregulation leading to lack of access to therapy." In contrast, if somebody dies because of receiving bad AI advice, that advice will ultimately be attributed as the cause of their death. Statistics will be very misleading here and won't ever show the whole picture, because counting deaths caused by AI is inherently a lot easier than counting the deaths it prevented (or didn't prevent). It is much safer for companies and governments to prohibit AI therapy, as then they won't have to deal with the lawsuits and the angry public demanding that they do something about the new problem. This is true even if AI is net beneficial because of the increased access to therapy. 3. Because of how AI models work, one model / company will handle many more patients than any single human therapist. This means you need to rethink how you punish mistakes. Even if you have a model that is 10x better than an average human, let's say 1 unnecessary suicide per 100000 patients instead of 1 per 10000, imprisonment after a single mistake may be a suitable punishment for humans, but is not one in the API space, as even a much better model is bound to cause a mistake at some point. 4. Another right question to ask is "how does effectiveness of AI at therapy in 2025 compare to the effectiveness of AI at therapy in 2023?" Where it's at right now does't matter, what matters is where it's going. If it continues at the current rate of improvement, when, if ever, will it surpass an average (or a particularly bad) licensed human therapist? 5. And if this happens and AI genuinely becomes better, are we sure that legislators and therapists have the right incentives to accept that reality? If we pass a law prohibiting AI therapy now, are we sure we have the mechanisms to get it repealed if AI ever gets good enough, considering points 1-3? If the extrapolated trajectory is promising enough (and I have not run the necessary research, I have no idea if it is or not), maybe it's better to let a few people suffer in the next few years due to bad advice, instead of having a lot of people suffer forever due to overzealous regulation?
- mrcsharp 1y ago> "I personally have the belief that everyone should probably have a therapist,” he said last week. “It’s like someone they can just talk to throughout the day, or not necessarily throughout the day, but about whatever issues they’re worried about and for people who don’t have a person who’s a therapist, I think everyone will have an AI.” He seems so desperate to sell AI that he forgot such thing already exists. It's called family or a close friend. I know there are people who truly have no one and they could benefit from a therapist. Having them rely on AI could prove risky specially if the person is suffering from depression. What if AI pushes them towards committing suicide? And I'll probably be told that OpenAI or Meta or MS can put guardrails against this. What happens when that fails (and we've seen it fail)? Who'll be held accountable? Does an LLM take the hippocratic oath? Are we actually abandoning all standards in favour of Mark Zuckerberg making more billions of dollars?
- fy20 1y ago> It's called family or a close friend. It's good you are socially privileged, but a lot of people do not have someone close who they can feel secure to confide in. Even a therapist doesn't help here, as a lot of people have pre-existing conditionings about what a therapist is "I'm not crazy, why do I need a therapist?". Case in point, my father's cousin lived alone and didn't have any friends. He lived in the same house his whole life, just outside London by himself, with no indoor toilet or hot water. A few years ago, social services came after the neighbours called, because his roof collapsed and he was just living as if nothing was wrong. My father was his closest living family, but they'd not spoken in 20 years or more. I feel this kind of thing is more common than you think. Especially with older people, they may have friends from the outside, but they aren't close with them that they can talk about whatever is on their mind.
- mrcsharp 1y agoI did address the fact that not everyone has a family or a close friend. What you described isn't a good fit for using AI. What would an LLM do for him? The fact his roof collapsed and he didn't think much of it indicates a deeper problem only a human can begin to tackle. We really shouldn't be solving deep societal problems by throwing more tech at them. That experiment has already failed.
- nickdothutton 1y agoPerhaps experts can somehow moderate or contribute training data awarded higher weights. Dont let perfect be the enemy of good.
- arvinsim 1y agoIt will be hard to fight against the tendency of people to use LLMs as therapists when LLMs are relatively free compared to paying up for a human therapist.