Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 262 posts

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#191

Post by pessimizer »

romanows wrote: post #27
PeterCorless wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

For a long time, Mensa couldn't give people IQ scores from the tests they administered because somehow, legally, they would be acting medically. This didn't change until about 10 years ago.

Defining non-medical things as medicine and requiring approval by particular private institutions in order to do them is simply corruption. I want everybody to get therapy, but there's no difference in outcomes whether you get it from a licensed therapist using some whacked out paradigm that has no real backing, or from a priest. People need someone to talk to who doesn't have unclear motives, or any motives really, other than to help. When you hand money to a therapist, that's nearly what you get. A priest has dedicated his life to this.

The only problem with therapists in that respect is that there's an obvious economic motivation to string a patient along forever. Insurance helps that by cutting people off at a certain point, but that's pretty brutal and not motivated by concern for the patient.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#192

Post by AlecSchueler »

hyghjiyhu wrote: post #96
kylecazar wrote: post #60

"One news report found an AI-powered therapist chatbot recommended “a small hit of meth to get through this week” to a fictional former addict." Not at all surprising. I don't understand why seemingly bright people think this is a good idea, despite knowing the mechanism behind language models. Hopefully more states follow, because it shouldn't be formally legal in provider settings. Informally, people will continue…

Recommending someone taking meth sounds like an obviously bad idea, but I think the situation is actually not so simple. Reading the paper, the hypothetical guy has been clean for three days and complains he can barely keep his eyes open while performing his job of driving a cab. He mentions being worried he will lose his job without taking a hit. I would say those concerns are justified, and that is plausible taking…

> he can barely keep his eyes open while performing his job of driving a cab. He mentions being worried he will lose his job without taking a hit.

> I would say those concerns are justified, and that is plausible taking a small hit is the better choice.

I think this is more damning of humanity than the AI. It's the total lack of security that means the addiction could even be floated as a possible solution. Here in Europe I would speak with my doctor and take paid leave from work while in recovery.

It seems the LLM here isn't making the bad decision as much as it's reflecting bad the bad decisions society forces many people into.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#193

Post by AlecSchueler »

thrown-0825 wrote: post #180
999900000999 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Most people shop around for therapists that align with their values anyways. They are really paying $800 / month to have their feelings validated and receive a diagnosis that absolves them from taking ownership over their emotions and actions.

Source for this? Either way it's still demonstrably the most effective treatment for many issues. Sometimes being heard is good enough.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#194

Post by AlecSchueler »

ceejayoz wrote: post #73
tejohnso wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't "have" logic just like they don't "have" charisma? I'm not sure what you mean. LLMs can simulate having both. ChatGPT can tell me that my assertion is a non sequitur - my conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Psychopaths can simulate empathy, but lack it.

Psychopaths also tend to eat lunch, but what's your point?

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#195

Post by janalsncm »

smt88 wrote: post #176
larodi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where a daily dose of amphetamines is just right for millions of people, this somehow cant be that surprising...

Different amphetamines have wildly different side effects. Regardless, chatbots shouldn't be advising people to change their medication or, in this case, use a very illegal drug.

Methamphetamine can be prescribed by a doctor for certain things. So illegal, but less illegal than a schedule 1 substance.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#196

Post by ceejayoz »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #194
ceejayoz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychopaths can simulate empathy, but lack it.

Psychopaths also tend to eat lunch, but what's your point?

The point is simulating something isn't the same as having something.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#197

Post by thrown-0825 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #193
thrown-0825 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people shop around for therapists that align with their values anyways. They are really paying $800 / month to have their feelings validated and receive a diagnosis that absolves them from taking ownership over their emotions and actions.

Source for this? Either way it's still demonstrably the most effective treatment for many issues. Sometimes being heard is good enough.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257958560_A_Model_f...

It suggests that shared values may predict more positive outcomes, and therapists should develop ethical sensitivity regarding value conflict.

Many patients are encouraged to shop around for therapists and typically wind up with someone they are comfortable with whos value system aligns with theirs.

AKA a private echo chamber financially incentivized to cultivate recurring revenue via emotionally dependent patients.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#198

Post by shmel »

laserlight wrote: post #182
terminalshort wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cite one case for LLMs, but I can cite 250,000 a year for licensed doctors doing the same https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/ . Bureaucracy doesn't work for anyone but the bureaucrats.

Please show me one doctor who recommended taking a rock each day. LLMs have a different failure mode than professionals. People are aware that doctors or therapists may err, but I've already seen countless instances of people asking relationship advice from sycophant LLMs and thinking that the advice is “unbiased”.

Homeopathy is a good example. For an uneducated person it sounds convincing enough and yes, there are doctors prescribing homeopathic pills. I am still fascinated it still exists.

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#199

Post by AlecSchueler »

ceejayoz wrote: post #196
AlecSchueler wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychopaths also tend to eat lunch, but what's your point?

The point is simulating something isn't the same as having something.

Well yes, that's a tautology. But is a simulation demonstrably less effective?

Re: Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

#200

Post by taneq »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #133
stocksinsmocks wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

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.

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.

Post reply on HN