That is one bullshit headline. Forbes keeping the AI pump and dump scheme going.
TLDR: People correctly discerned that written responses were from an “AI” chatbot slightly less often than they correctly discerned that responses were from a psychotherapist.
“AI” cannot replace a therapist and hasn’t “won” squat.
Further, participants in most cases preferred ChatGPT’s take on the matter at hand. That was based on five factors: whether the response understood the speaker, showed empathy, was appropriate for the therapy setting, was relevant for various cultural backgrounds, and was something a good therapist would say.
Patients explaining they liked what they heared - not if it is correct or relevant to the cause. There is not even a pipeline for escalation, because AIs don’t think.
That is one bullshit headline. Forbes keeping the AI pump and dump scheme going.
TLDR: People correctly discerned that written responses were from an “AI” chatbot slightly less often than they correctly discerned that responses were from a psychotherapist.
“AI” cannot replace a therapist and hasn’t “won” squat.
Holy shit, thanks for saving us the click. Wtf
You’re doing the lord’s work 🫡
A bit disingenuous not to mention this part:
Patients explaining they liked what they heared - not if it is correct or relevant to the cause. There is not even a pipeline for escalation, because AIs don’t think.
Exactly. AI chatbot’s also cannot empathize since they have no self awareness.
You can’t say “Exactly” when you tl;dr’d and removed one of the most important parts of the article.
Your human summary was literally worse than AI 🤦
but it can give the illusion of empathy, which is far more important.