I know it’s not even close there yet. It can tell you to kill yourself or to kill a president. But what about when I finish school in like 7 years? Who would pay for a therapist or a psychologist when you can ask for help a floating head on your computer?
You might think this is a stupid and irrational question. “There is no way AI will do psychology well, ever.” But I think in today’s day and age it’s pretty fair to ask when you are deciding about your future.
A computer will never have emotions the same way a human has emotions. It is not a living creature. True and genuine human connection is something that will only become more invaluable with the rise of AI
Eh, I give it 5 years.
Never say never, because everything is possible given enough time. The only question being how much time.
you are being wildly optimistic. AI confidently lies to you about purely objective things such as asking it to write a program and it confidently writes it wrong and tells you that it is correct over and over. Something like psychology and mental health is far from objective and is constantly evolving, and also differs from person to person based on a gazillion different variables, the most important of them being emotion, something a robot will most likely never have. Even some living animals do not have a wide range of emotions such as snakes that only feel fear and anger, they don’t feel sadness or happiness or anything. What would make you think that artificially created robots would have enough emotional intelligence to replace human psychologists within 5 years?
homie lemme let you in on a secret that shouldn’t be secret
in therapy, 40% of positive client outcomes come from external factors changing
10% come from my efforts
10% come from their efforts
and the last 40% comes from the therapeutic alliance itself
people heal through the relationship they have with their counselor
not a fucking machine
this field ain’t going anywhere, not any time soon. not until we have fully sentient general ai with human rights and shit
I don’t think there’s harm in allowing people who would never be able to afford life-saving medicine to have life-saving medicine cat-puzzle-feeder style
Edit: this was me and access hasn’t changed the fact that I do no generally derive value from it.
Interestingly, and somewhat related, it was tested years ago whether a Robot could bring comfort/social support to lonely pets/elderly.
The results were outstandingly in support, and this is going into actual commercial usage/development as we speak.
You realize that adds up to 60% right?
40 40 10 10
math moment
I won’t trust a tech company with my most intimate secrets. Human therapists won’t get fully replaced by ai
You are putting WAY too much faith in the ability of programmers. Real AI that can do the job of a therapist is decades away, at least - and then there’s the approval process, which will take years all by itself. Don’t underestimate that. AI therapy is uncharted territory, and the approval process will be lengthy, detailed, and incredibly strict.
Lastly, there’s public acceptance. Even if AI turns out to have measurably better outcomes, if people aren’t comfortable with it, statistics won’t matter. People aren’t rational. I don’t care how “good” Alexa is, or how much evidence you show me - I will never accept that a piece of software can understand what it’s like to grow up as a person. I want to talk about my issues with a flawed, fallible human, not a box plugged into the wall.
You ask a valid question, just much earlier than necessary. I’d be surprised if AI was a viable alternative by the time you retire.
Dr Sbaitso was proven to be clinically effective in the 1980s.
There are already digital therapeutic platforms approved for mental health. Orexo deprexis is one such program. The fact is that the vast majority of people who need therapy aren’t getting it now. These ai therapy models will provide services to those people. I’m willing to bet that in a decade, the majority of therapy will be done by AI, with human therapists focused on the most severe behavioral health conditions.
I don’t think the AI everyone is so buzzed about today is really a true AI. As someone summed it up: it’s more like a great autocomplete feature but it’s not great at understanding things.
It will be great to replace Siri and the Google assistant but not at giving people professional advice by a long shot.
Not saying an LLM should substitute a professional psychological consultant, but that someone is clearly wrong and doesn’t understand current AI. Just FYI
Care to elaborate?
It’s an oversimplified statement from someone (sorry I don’t have the source) and I’m not exactly an AI expert but my understanding is the current commercial AI products are nowhere near the “think and judge like a human” definition. They can scrape the internet for information and use it to react to prompts and can do a fantastic job to imitate humans, but the technology is simply not there.
The technology for human intelligence? Any technology would be always very different from human intelligence. What you probably are referring to is AGI, that is defined as artificial general intelligence, which is an “intelligent” agent that doesn’t excel in anything, but is able to handle a huge variety of scenarios and tasks, such as humans.
LLM are specialized models to generate fluent text, but very different from autocompletes because can work with concepts, semantics and (pretty surprisingly) with rather complex logic.
As oversimplification even humans are fancy autocomplete. They are just different, as LLMs are different.
Even if AI did make psychology redundant in a couple of years (which I’d bet my favourite blanket it won’t), what are the alternatives? If AI can take over a field that is focused more than most others on human interaction, personal privacy, thoughts, feelings, and individual perceptions, then it can take over almost any other field before that. So you might as well go for it while you can.
The fields that will hold out the longest will be selected by legal liability rather than technical challenge.
Piloting a jumbo jet for example, has been automated for decades but you’ll never see an airline skipping the pilot.
No, it won’t. I don’t think I would have made it here today alive without my therapist. There may be companies that have AI agents doing therapy sessions but your qualifications will still be priceless and more effective in comparison.
It’s just like with programming: The people who are scared of AI taking their jobs are usually bad at them.
AI is incredibly good at regurgitating information and translation, but not at understanding. Programming can be viewed as translation, so they are good at it. LLMs on their own won’t become much better in terms of understanding, we’re at a point where they are already trained on all the good data from the internet. Now we’re starting to let AIs collect data directly from the world (chatGPT being public is just a play to collect more data), but that’s much slower.
The web is one thing, but access to senses and a body that can manipulate the world will be a huge watershed moment for AI.
Then it will be able to learn about the world in a much more serious way.
Psychotherapy is about building a working relationship. Transference is a big part of this relationship. I don’t feel like I’d be able to build the same kind of therapeutic relationship with an AI that I would with another human. That doesn’t mean AI can’t be a therapeutic tool. I can see how it could be beneficial with things like positive affirmations and disrupting negative thinking patterns. But this wouldn’t be a substitute for psychotherapy, just a tool for enhancing it.
AI cannot think, it does not logic or reason. It outputs a result from an input prompt. That will not solve psychological problems.
It’s what AI does at the moment. Which may not necessarily be true in a few years, what’s what OP is asking about.
At the end of the day AI (no just the LLM we call AI now) are really good at doing boring machine work. These tasks are repetitive, simple and routine. This includes all the LLM which can summarize boring text and generate more boring text. It can’t generate anything new but just output and rearrange.
What there will be always need for are human work. This includes creativity, emotions and human interaction. A machine can’t replace that at all. Psychology and therapy are all emotions and human interactions so it might be the most safe career choice. Same with something like haircutting or other career that involve human wisdom and personal skills.
Boring jobs like sending and receiving emails might be replaced. The reason businesses are so scared is that the majority of people in an office just do that
Here’s a case study for you: An eating disorder hotline got rid of the humans in favor of an AI chatbot. Lasted less than a week before it was giving horrible advice.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/31/eating-disorder-hotline-union-ai-chatbot-harm
Psychology will be controlled by humans, probably forever.
All my points have already been (better) covered by others in the time it took me to type them, but instead of deleting will post anyway :)
If your concerns are about AI replacing therapists & psychologists why wouldn’t that same worry apply to literally anything else you might want to pursue? Ostensibly anything physical can already be automated so that would remove “blue-collar” trades and now that there’s significant progress into creative/“white-collar” sectors that would mean the end of everything else.
Why carve wood sculptures when a CNC machine can do it faster & better? Why learn to write poetry when there’s LLMs?
Even if there was a perfect recreation of their appearance and mannerisms, voice, smell, and all the rest – would a synthetic version of someone you love be equally as important to you? I suspect there will always be a place and need for authentic human experience/output even as technology constantly improves.
With therapy specifically there’s probably going to be elements that an AI can [semi-]uniquely deal with just because a person might not feel comfortable being completely candid with another human; I believe that’s what using puppets or animals or whatever to act as an intermediary are for. Supposedly even a really basic thing like ELIZA was able convince some people it was intelligent and they opened up to it and possibly found some relief from it, and there’s nothing in it close to what is currently possible with AI. I can envision a scenario in the future where a person just needs to vent and having a floating head just compassionately listen and offer suggestions will be enough; but I think most(?) people would prefer/need an actual human when the stakes are higher than that – otherwise the suicide hotlines would already just be pre-recorded positive affirmation messages.
You still had some good/new points in last paragraph. Thx
By the way, if you want to try Eliza, you can telnet into
telehack.comand run the commandelizato launch it.
Given how little we know about the inner workings of the brain (I’m a materialist, so to me the mind is the result of processes in the brain), I think there is still ample room for human intuition in therapy. Also, I believe there will always be people who prefer talking to a human over a machine.
Think about it this way: Yes, most of our furniture is mass-produced by IKEA and others like it, but there are still very successful carpenters out there making beautiful furniture for people.
I was gonna say given how little we know about the inner workings of the brain, we need to be hesitant about drawing strict categorical boundaries between ourselves and LLMs.
There’s a powerful motivation to believe they are not as capable as us, which probably skews our perceptions and judgments.
Hey, maybe your back ground in psychology will help with unfucking an errant LLM or actual AI someday :P
