←back to thread

'It cannot provide nuance': UK experts warn AI therapy chatbots are not safe

(www.theguardian.com)
165 points distalx | 5 comments | 10 May 25 15:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.48s | source
Show context
sheepscreek ◴[10 May 25 22:18 UTC] No.43949463[source]▶
That’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.

replies(5): >>43949589 #>>43949591 #>>43950064 #>>43950278 #>>43950547 #
caseyy ◴[11 May 25 00:03 UTC] No.43950064[source]▶
> 80% benefit at a fraction of the cost

I'm sure 80% of expert therapists in any modality will disagree.

At best, AI can compete with telehealth therapy, which is known for having practically no quality standards. And of course, LLMs surpass "no quality standards" with flying colors.

I say this very rarely because I think such statements should be used with caution, but in this case: saying that LLMs can do 80% of a therapist's work is actually harmful for people who might believe it and not seek effective therapy. Going down this path has a good probability of costing someone dearly.

replies(1): >>43950200 #
1. sheepscreek ◴[11 May 25 00:31 UTC] No.43950200[source]▶
My statement is intended for individuals who cannot afford therapy. That’s why my comment centers on cost and availability (accessibility). It’s a frequently overlooked reason why people hesitate to seek therapy.

Given that, AI can be just as good as talking to a friend when you don’t have one (or feel uncomfortable discussing something with one).

replies(2): >>43950277 #>>43952843 #
2. caseyy ◴[11 May 25 00:47 UTC] No.43950277[source]▶
> AI can be just as good as talking to a friend when you don’t have one

This is not true, and it's not even wrong. You almost cannot argue with such a statement without being ridiculous. The best I can say is: natural language synthesis is not a substitute for friends.

If we are debating these things, it's evidence we adopted LLMs with far too little forethought.

I mean, on a technicality, you could say "my friend synthesizes plausible language, this can do it, too. So it can substitute a little bit!" but at that point I'm pretty sure we're not discussing friendship in its essence, and the (emotional, physical, social, etc) support that comes with it.

replies(2): >>43950345 #>>43950425 #
3. mvdtnz ◴[11 May 25 01:02 UTC] No.43950345[source]▶
No one said it was a substitute for a friend. The comment you're responding to is saying it's a substitute for no friends at all.
4. sheepscreek ◴[11 May 25 01:17 UTC] No.43950425[source]▶
I think we can dissect the arguments philosophically in many ways, even getting quite nitpicky if we like. So please indulge me for a moment.

“A friend” can also serve as a metaphor for an acquaintance you feel comfortable seeking counsel from.

5. GreenWatermelon ◴[11 May 25 10:40 UTC] No.43952843[source]▶
> AI can be just as good as talking to a friend when you don’t have one

This sentence effectively reads "AI cam be just as good as (nothing)" since you can't talk to a friend when you don't have one.

Of course, I understand the point you were trying to make, which is that AI is better than absolutely nothing; but I disagree in the vain that AI will give you a false since of companionship that might lead you further towards bad outcomes.