Illinois limits the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy

Post by oinfoalgo » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 12:25 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #121

awesomeusername wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably in the minority here, but for me it's a foregone conclusion that it will become a better therapist, doctor, architect, etc. Instead of the rich getting access to the best professionals, it will level the playing field. The average low level lawyer, doctor, etc are not great. How nice if everyone got top level help.

It would still need to be regulated and licensed. There was this [0] I saw today about a guy who tried to replace sodium chloride in his diet with sodium bromide because ChatGPT said he could, and poisoned himself. With a regulated license, there is someone to hold accountable for wantonly dangerous advice, much like there is with humans. [0] https://x.com/AnnalsofIMCC/status/1953531705802797070

Post by ivell » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 12:35 PM UTC

fl0id wrote: post #223

shmel wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s actually a example of sth different. And as it’s basically a placebo it only harms people’s wallets (mostly). That cannot be said for random llm failure modes. And whether it can be prescribed by doctors depends very much on the country

Post by mrbungie » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 1:19 PM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #234

mrbungie wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought we were talking about outcomes, not opinions. Are those other humans doctors? Is there the clinical research or guidelines to backup giving meth to a person in withdrawal syndrome?

> Are those other humans doctors? I'm pretty sure doctors are not legally allowed to tell a patient to take illegal drugs, even in a hypothetical situation where they might think it's a reasonable choice.

Post by terminalshort » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 1:32 PM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #232

terminalshort wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A LLM (or doctor) recommending that I take a rock can't hurt me. Screwing up in more reasonable sounding ways is much more dangerous.

Actually, swallowing a rock will almost certainly cause problems. Telling your state medical board that your doctor told you to take a rock will have a wildly different outcome than telling a judge that you swallowed one because ChatGPT told you to do so. Unless the judge has you examined and found to be incompetent, they're most likely to just tell you that you're an idiot and throw out the case.

Post by treespace8 » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 1:54 PM UTC

quantummagic wrote: post #140

jakelazaroff wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a foregone conclusion?

Because meat isn't magic. Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica. Given enough time, we'll create that replica, there's no reason to think otherwise.