So we know that in certain cases, using chatbots as a substitute for therapy can lead to increased suffering, increases risk of harm to self and others, and amplifies symptoms of certain diagnosis. Does this mean we know it couldn’t be helpful in certain cases? No. You ingested the exact same logic corpos have with LLMs, which is “just throw it at everything”, and you seem to not notice you apply it the same way they do.
We might have enough data at some point to assess what kinds of people could benefit from “chatbot therapy” or something along those lines. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer we could provide more and better therapy/healthcare in general to people, and that we had less systemic issues for which therapy is just a bandage.
it’s worse than nothing
Yes, in total. But not necessarily in particular. That’s a big difference.
bob_lemon@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I’m fairly confident that this could be solved by better trained and configured chatbots. Maybe as a supplementary device between in-person therapy sessions, too.
I’m also very confident that there’ll be lot of harm done until we get to that point. And probably after (for the sake of maximizing profits) unless there’s a ton of regulation and oversight.
truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I’m not sure LLMs can do this. The reason is context poisoning. There would need to be an overseer system of some kind.