8 ms·

Here is what Illinois says: https://idfpr.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idfpr/news/2025/2025-08-04-idfpr-press-release-hb1806.pdf https://idfpr.illinois.

Here is what Illinois says: https://idfpr.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idfpr/news/2025/2025-08-04-idfpr-press-release-hb1806.pdf https://idfpr.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/idfpr/news... I get the impression that it is now illegal in Illinois to claim that an AI chatbot can take the place of a licensed therapist or counselor. That doesn't mean people can't do what they want with AI. It only means that counseling services can't offer AI as a cheaper replacement for a real person. Am I wrong? This sounds good to me.

romanows 1y ago
In another comment I wondered whether a general chatbot producing text that was later determined in a courtroom to be "therapy" would be a violation. I can read the bill that way, but IANAL.
- hathawsh 1y ago
  That's an interesting question that hasn't been tested yet. I suspect we won't be able to answer the question clearly until something bad happens and people go to court (sadly.) Also IANAL.
- wombatpm 1y ago
  But that would be like needing a prescription for chicken soup because of its benefits in fighting the common cold.
PeterCorless 1y ago
Correct. It is more provider-oriented proscription ("You can't say your chatbot is a therapist.") It is not a limitation on usage. You can still, for now, slavishly fall in love with your AI and treat it as your best friend and therapist. There is a specific section that relates to how a licensed professional can use AI: Section 15. Permitted use of artificial intelligence. (a) As used in this Section, "permitted use of artificial intelligence" means the use of artificial intelligence tools or systems by a licensed professional to assist in providing administrative support or supplementary support in therapy or psychotherapy services where the licensed professional maintains full responsibility for all interactions, outputs, and data use associated with the system and satisfies the requirements of subsection (b). (b) No licensed professional shall be permitted to use artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support in therapy or psychotherapy where the client's therapeutic session is recorded or transcribed unless: (1) the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative is informed in writing of the following: (A) that artificial intelligence will be used; and (B) the specific purpose of the artificial intelligence tool or system that will be used; and (2) the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative provides consent to the use of artificial intelligence. Source: Illinois HB1806 https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=1806&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=0&SessionID=114 https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18...
- romanows 1y ago
  Yes, but also "An... entity may not provide... therapy... to the public unless the therapy... services are conducted by... a licensed professional". It's not obvious to me as a non-lawyer whether a chat history could be decided to be "therapy" in a courtroom. If so, this could count as a violation. Probably lots of law around this stuff for lawyers and doctors cornered into giving advice at parties already that might apply (e.g., maybe a disclaimer is enough to workaround the prohibition)?
  - germinalphrase 1y ago
    Functionally, it probably amounts to two restrictions: a chatbot cannot formally diagnose & a chatbot cannot bill insurance companies for services rendered.
    - lupire 1y ago
      Most "therapy" services are not providing a diagnosis. Diagnosis comes from an evaluation before therapy starts, or sometimes not at all. (You can pay to talk to someone without a diagnosis.) The prohibition is mainly on accepting any payment for advertised therapy service, if not following the rules of therapy (licensure, AI guidelines). Likewise for medicine and law.
      - bluefirebrand 1y ago
        Many therapy services have the ability to diagnose as therapy proceeds though
    - gopher_space 1y ago
      After a bit of consideration I’m actually ok with codifying Bad Ideas. We could expand this.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - pessimizer 1y ago
turnsout 1y ago
It does sound good (especially as an Illinois resident). Luckily, as far as I can tell, this is a proactive legislation. I don't think there are any startups out there promoting their LLM-based chatbot as a replacement for a therapist, or attempting to bill payers for service.
- duskwuff 1y ago
  > I don't think there are any startups out there promoting their LLM-based chatbot as a replacement for a therapist Unfortunately, there are already a bunch.
linotype 1y ago
What if at some point an AI is developed that’s a better therapist AND it’s cheaper?
- awesomeusername 1y ago
  I'm probably in the minority here, but for me it's a foregone conclusion that it will become a better therapist, doctor, architect, etc. Instead of the rich getting access to the best professionals, it will level the playing field. The average low level lawyer, doctor, etc are not great. How nice if everyone got top level help.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    Why is that a foregone conclusion?
    - quantummagic 1y ago
      Because meat isn't magic. Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica. Given enough time, we'll create that replica, there's no reason to think otherwise.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Even if we grant that for the sake of argument, there are two leaps of faith here: - That AI as it currently exists is on the right track to creating that replica. Maybe neural networks will plateau before we get close. Maybe the Von Neumann architecture is the limiting factor, and we can only create the replica with a radically different model of computing! - That we will have enough time. Maybe we'll accomplish it by the end of the decade. Maybe climate change or nuclear war will turn the world into a Mad Max–esque wasteland before we get the chance. Maybe it'll happen in a million years, when humans have evolved into other species. We just don't know!
        1y ago
danenania 1y ago
While I agree it’s very reasonable to ban marketing of AI as a replacement for a human therapist, I feel like there could still be space for innovation in terms of AI acting as an always-available supplement to the human therapist. If the therapist is reviewing the chats and configuring the system prompt, perhaps it could be beneficial. It might also be a terrible idea, but we won’t find out if we make it illegal to try new things in a safe/supervised way. Not to say that what I just described would be illegal under this law; I’m not sure whether it would be. I’d expect it will discourage any Illinois-licensed therapists from trying out this kind of idea though.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 1y ago
What's good about reducing options available for therapy? If the issue is misrepresentation, there are already laws that cover this.
- dsr_ 1y ago
  We've tried that, and it turns out that self-regulation doesn't work. If it did, we could live in Libertopia.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- r14c 1y ago
  It's not really reducing options. There's no evidence that LLM chat bots are capable of providing effective mental health services.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  For human therapists, what’s good is that it preserves their ability to charge high fees because the demand for therapists far outstrips the supply. Who lobbied for this law anyway?
  - guappa 1y ago
    And for human patients it makes sure their sensitive private information isn't entirely in the hands of some megacorp which will harvest it to use it and profit from it in some unethical way.
- lr4444lr 1y ago
  It's not therapy. It's a simulated validating listening, and context-lacking suggestions. There is no more therapy being provided by an LLM than there is healing performed by a robot arm that slaps a bandage on your arm if you were to put it in the right spot and push a button to make it pivot toward you, find your arm, and spread it lightly.
stocksinsmocks 1y ago
I think this sort of service would be OK with informed consent. I would actually be a little surprised if there were much difference in patient outcomes. …And it turns out it has been studied with findings that AI work, but humans are better. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871827/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871827/
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Usually when it comes to medical stuff, things don't get approved unless they are better than existing therapies. With the shortage of mental health care in the US, maybe an exception should be made. This is a tough one. We like to think that nobody should have to get second rate medical care, even though that's the reality.
  - taneq 1y ago
    I think a good analogy would be a cheap, non-medically-approved (but medical style) ultrasound. Maybe it’s marketed as a “novelty”, maybe you have to sign a waiver saying it won’t be used for diagnostic purposes, whatever. You know that it’s going to get used as a diagnostic tool, and you know that people are going to die because of this. Under our current medical ethics, you can’t do this. Maybe we should re-evaluate this, but that opens the door to moral hazard around cheap unreliable practices. It’s not straightforward.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Moral hazard? Versus not getting even a diagnostic, let alone care, because someone couldn't afford it? Versus self determination? A clear upfront statement of what the product is not ought to suffice. What we have isn't motivated by protection from moral hazard (at least IMO). It's a guild system that restricts even vaguely related access and practices in (I'd argue) an overly broad manner. To be clear I don't object to the guild in this case. Only to the overly broad fence surrounding it.
IIAOPSW 1y ago
I'll just add that this has certain other interesting legal implications, because records in relation to a therapy session are a "protected confidence" (or whatever your local jurisdiction calls it). What that means is in most circumstances not even a subpoena can touch it, and even then special permissions are usually needed. So one of the open questions on my mind for a while now was if and when a conversation with an AI counts as a "protected confidence" or if that argument could successfully be used to fend off a subpoena. At least in Illinois we now have an answer, and other jurisdictions look to what has been established elsewhere when deciding their own laws, so the implications are far reaching.
tomjen3 1y ago
The problem is that it leaves nothing for those who cannot afford to pay for the full cost of therapy.
guappa 1y ago
But didn't trump make it illegal to make laws to limit the use of ai?
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  Why do you think a president had the authority to determine laws?
  - guappa 1y ago
    Seems he tried but it didn't pass https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-senate-strikes-ai-regulation-ban-trump-megabill-2025-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-senate-strikes-a...

romanows 1y ago

In another comment I wondered whether a general chatbot producing text that was later determined in a courtroom to be "therapy" would be a violation. I can read the bill that way, but IANAL.

hathawsh 1y ago
That's an interesting question that hasn't been tested yet. I suspect we won't be able to answer the question clearly until something bad happens and people go to court (sadly.) Also IANAL.
wombatpm 1y ago
But that would be like needing a prescription for chicken soup because of its benefits in fighting the common cold.

PeterCorless 1y ago

Correct. It is more provider-oriented proscription ("You can't say your chatbot is a therapist.") It is not a limitation on usage. You can still, for now, slavishly fall in love with your AI and treat it as your best friend and therapist. There is a specific section that relates to how a licensed professional can use AI: Section 15. Permitted use of artificial intelligence. (a) As used in this Section, "permitted use of artificial intelligence" means the use of artificial intelligence tools or systems by a licensed professional to assist in providing administrative support or supplementary support in therapy or psychotherapy services where the licensed professional maintains full responsibility for all interactions, outputs, and data use associated with the system and satisfies the requirements of subsection (b). (b) No licensed professional shall be permitted to use artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support in therapy or psychotherapy where the client's therapeutic session is recorded or transcribed unless: (1) the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative is informed in writing of the following: (A) that artificial intelligence will be used; and (B) the specific purpose of the artificial intelligence tool or system that will be used; and (2) the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative provides consent to the use of artificial intelligence. Source: Illinois HB1806 https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=1806&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=0&SessionID=114 https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18...

romanows 1y ago
Yes, but also "An... entity may not provide... therapy... to the public unless the therapy... services are conducted by... a licensed professional". It's not obvious to me as a non-lawyer whether a chat history could be decided to be "therapy" in a courtroom. If so, this could count as a violation. Probably lots of law around this stuff for lawyers and doctors cornered into giving advice at parties already that might apply (e.g., maybe a disclaimer is enough to workaround the prohibition)?
- germinalphrase 1y ago
  Functionally, it probably amounts to two restrictions: a chatbot cannot formally diagnose & a chatbot cannot bill insurance companies for services rendered.
  - lupire 1y ago
    Most "therapy" services are not providing a diagnosis. Diagnosis comes from an evaluation before therapy starts, or sometimes not at all. (You can pay to talk to someone without a diagnosis.) The prohibition is mainly on accepting any payment for advertised therapy service, if not following the rules of therapy (licensure, AI guidelines). Likewise for medicine and law.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      Many therapy services have the ability to diagnose as therapy proceeds though
  - gopher_space 1y ago
    After a bit of consideration I’m actually ok with codifying Bad Ideas. We could expand this.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 1y ago

turnsout 1y ago

It does sound good (especially as an Illinois resident). Luckily, as far as I can tell, this is a proactive legislation. I don't think there are any startups out there promoting their LLM-based chatbot as a replacement for a therapist, or attempting to bill payers for service.

duskwuff 1y ago
> I don't think there are any startups out there promoting their LLM-based chatbot as a replacement for a therapist Unfortunately, there are already a bunch.

linotype 1y ago

What if at some point an AI is developed that’s a better therapist AND it’s cheaper?

awesomeusername 1y ago
I'm probably in the minority here, but for me it's a foregone conclusion that it will become a better therapist, doctor, architect, etc. Instead of the rich getting access to the best professionals, it will level the playing field. The average low level lawyer, doctor, etc are not great. How nice if everyone got top level help.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  Why is that a foregone conclusion?
  - quantummagic 1y ago
    Because meat isn't magic. Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica. Given enough time, we'll create that replica, there's no reason to think otherwise.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      Even if we grant that for the sake of argument, there are two leaps of faith here: - That AI as it currently exists is on the right track to creating that replica. Maybe neural networks will plateau before we get close. Maybe the Von Neumann architecture is the limiting factor, and we can only create the replica with a radically different model of computing! - That we will have enough time. Maybe we'll accomplish it by the end of the decade. Maybe climate change or nuclear war will turn the world into a Mad Max–esque wasteland before we get the chance. Maybe it'll happen in a million years, when humans have evolved into other species. We just don't know!
      - 1y ago

danenania 1y ago

While I agree it’s very reasonable to ban marketing of AI as a replacement for a human therapist, I feel like there could still be space for innovation in terms of AI acting as an always-available supplement to the human therapist. If the therapist is reviewing the chats and configuring the system prompt, perhaps it could be beneficial. It might also be a terrible idea, but we won’t find out if we make it illegal to try new things in a safe/supervised way. Not to say that what I just described would be illegal under this law; I’m not sure whether it would be. I’d expect it will discourage any Illinois-licensed therapists from trying out this kind of idea though.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 1y ago

What's good about reducing options available for therapy? If the issue is misrepresentation, there are already laws that cover this.

dsr_ 1y ago
We've tried that, and it turns out that self-regulation doesn't work. If it did, we could live in Libertopia.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
r14c 1y ago
It's not really reducing options. There's no evidence that LLM chat bots are capable of providing effective mental health services.
SoftTalker 1y ago
For human therapists, what’s good is that it preserves their ability to charge high fees because the demand for therapists far outstrips the supply. Who lobbied for this law anyway?
- guappa 1y ago
  And for human patients it makes sure their sensitive private information isn't entirely in the hands of some megacorp which will harvest it to use it and profit from it in some unethical way.
lr4444lr 1y ago
It's not therapy. It's a simulated validating listening, and context-lacking suggestions. There is no more therapy being provided by an LLM than there is healing performed by a robot arm that slaps a bandage on your arm if you were to put it in the right spot and push a button to make it pivot toward you, find your arm, and spread it lightly.

stocksinsmocks 1y ago

I think this sort of service would be OK with informed consent. I would actually be a little surprised if there were much difference in patient outcomes. …And it turns out it has been studied with findings that AI work, but humans are better. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871827/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11871827/

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Usually when it comes to medical stuff, things don't get approved unless they are better than existing therapies. With the shortage of mental health care in the US, maybe an exception should be made. This is a tough one. We like to think that nobody should have to get second rate medical care, even though that's the reality.
- taneq 1y ago
  I think a good analogy would be a cheap, non-medically-approved (but medical style) ultrasound. Maybe it’s marketed as a “novelty”, maybe you have to sign a waiver saying it won’t be used for diagnostic purposes, whatever. You know that it’s going to get used as a diagnostic tool, and you know that people are going to die because of this. Under our current medical ethics, you can’t do this. Maybe we should re-evaluate this, but that opens the door to moral hazard around cheap unreliable practices. It’s not straightforward.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Moral hazard? Versus not getting even a diagnostic, let alone care, because someone couldn't afford it? Versus self determination? A clear upfront statement of what the product is not ought to suffice. What we have isn't motivated by protection from moral hazard (at least IMO). It's a guild system that restricts even vaguely related access and practices in (I'd argue) an overly broad manner. To be clear I don't object to the guild in this case. Only to the overly broad fence surrounding it.

IIAOPSW 1y ago

I'll just add that this has certain other interesting legal implications, because records in relation to a therapy session are a "protected confidence" (or whatever your local jurisdiction calls it). What that means is in most circumstances not even a subpoena can touch it, and even then special permissions are usually needed. So one of the open questions on my mind for a while now was if and when a conversation with an AI counts as a "protected confidence" or if that argument could successfully be used to fend off a subpoena. At least in Illinois we now have an answer, and other jurisdictions look to what has been established elsewhere when deciding their own laws, so the implications are far reaching.

tomjen3 1y ago

The problem is that it leaves nothing for those who cannot afford to pay for the full cost of therapy.

guappa 1y ago

But didn't trump make it illegal to make laws to limit the use of ai?

malcolmgreaves 1y ago
Why do you think a president had the authority to determine laws?
- guappa 1y ago
  Seems he tried but it didn't pass https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-senate-strikes-ai-regulation-ban-trump-megabill-2025-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-senate-strikes-a...