More than 6 out of 10 people turn to AI for psychological support

Can see a place using it here. Most human psychologists patients see every week or so at a scheduled time, not because that is what is most effective in terms of treating your psychological issues but because of scheduling and cost reasons. Being able to get support at more regular intervals if done correctly may improve healing. The scheduled time may also not be the most effective time either. Events can happen on the day that reduce treatment effectiveness. The scheduling and resource allocation is a human problem (not enough psychologists, psychologists need their own personal boundaries and recovery time etc). A tool that can extend psychologists usefulness may be able to get the treatment that people actually need.

Then there is the money aspect. Too many people don't have the money for psychological treatment. Having a cheaper alternative will help. Unless we actually start thinking outside the box here we won't solve mental illness and so all tools should be used.

> "more than 6 in 10 people declare they already use AI for mental health questions. 42% of them almost always follow the advice it gives them."

If these numbers were "of people who regularly use GenAI chat tools" then I'd be surprised it was quite so high already, but not shocked and would find it completely believable.

But this seems to be "of all people surveyed", which I'm rather skeptical of - unless their sample was very biased (as an extreme example, if they recruited people to the survey only by linking to it in ChatGPT ads, but there are plenty of less extreme ways to get a sample group that's way more likely to use AI than a genuinely random sample of the whole population).

It's also worth noting (and perhaps somewhat explains numbers seeming so unrealistically high to me) that, unless I've misunderstood, "turn to AI for psychological support" isn't necessarily "using AI as a therapist", it could be uses as minor as asking "Can exercise help with my depression?" or "If I think I am having a nervous breakdown, should I talk to a doctor?"

Oh hell no. That's horrible.

If you have baseline epistemic hygiene there's nothing wrong with using an LLM for advice.

If you have baseline epistemic hygeine you'd also recognized this as a B2B sales pitch: Axa sell group health, employee-assistance, and corporate wellbeing products.

This just makes sense. A normal day contains dozens of experiences that could be bettered by cheap actions that I am awful at predicting or imagining. I had an argument with a partner at one point where I was baffled and basically at a loss, asked chatgpt, and it spit back a response that seemed... okay. I adapted it into my own voice, keeping only what was sincere, etc (not just dumping LLM slop at another human, which is fucked, more like using it to coarsely choose a vector/filter through a big cloud of things I actually believe). My partner's response was incredible. It completely diffused the situation and my they were pleasantly surprised. Without the LLM, I would have been entirely unable to conceive of and walk that happy path.

The problems we have with our psychology often involve deviation from the normal or desirable state, so a robot that spits out a cheap reversion to the mean can be really helpful.

My flavor of this is somewhat autism-coded, but it generalizes well. EG people who aren't used to negotiating, valuing themselves, etc. Obviously LLMs output hallucinated dogshit and occasionally dangerous nonsense.

But it must be admitted: a lot of our psychological hiccups can be solved by the thoughtless, typical advice.

38% putting them over professionals is nuts though. I would much rather have the real thing, but it's $200/hr and asleep at 3am.\