4 ms·
> Most users are happy to just go to ChatGPT and talk to whatever’s available. Why is that? Perhaps their use case is so unremarkable and unsophisticated that
by timewizard 1y ago
> Most users are happy to just go to ChatGPT and talk to whatever’s available. Why is that?
Perhaps their use case is so unremarkable and unsophisticated that the quality of output is immaterial to it.
> Most good personal advice does not require substantial intelligence.
Is that what therapy is to this author? "Good advice given unintelligently?"
> They’re platitudes because they’re true!
And the appeal is you can get an LLM to repeat them to you? How exactly is that "appealing?"
> However, they are fundamentally a good fit for doing it because they are
...bad technology that can only solve a limited number of boring problems unreliably. Which is what saying platitudes to a person in trouble is and not at all what therapy is meant to be.
- em-bee 1y agofor me to discuss problems requires human empathy from the listener. AI can't provide that. talking to an AI about personal problems is no better than talking to myself. patience for answering technical/knowledge questions that i don't want to bother a human being with may be nice, but i get the same patience from a search engine. and the patience an AI provides is contrasted with the patience that i need to get the right answers. i have endless patience when talking to a human being because i have empathy for them. but i don't have empathy for a machine, and therefore i have no patience at all for the potential mistakes and hallucinations that an AI might produce. AI for therapy is even worse. the thought that i could receive bad/hallucinated advice from an AI outright scares me.