this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
152 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
75227 readers
3014 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
30 million morons.
Well...
From an evolutionary standpoint, we're basically the same collection of mostly-hairless primates that, 20,000 years ago, hadn't yet figured out agriculture and were roaming the land in small groups of maybe 100 or so at most, living off it as best we could.
From that standpoint, I think that we've done pretty well with a brain that evolved to deal with a rather different environment and is having to navigate a terribly-confusing, rather different situation.
I mean, you see any other critters that have been outperforming us on improving their understanding of the world?
Well that for one, but also self destruction of their environment for living in roughly 150 years. Chapeau!
So yeah I think we were doing well at some point. Now we're here.
Also we need to redefine success.
Why? Is it somehow better to go to an actual church or pay someone to confide in?
People using technology to fill a need on the company's funds is not the worst thing in the world.
Objectively yes.
A real person isn't a stochastic parrot yes-anding whatever stupid idea falls out of your head and is less likely to provide obsequious responses to questions asked.
A real person is less likely to compile what you say to them and mine data from it or turn it over to authorities without a warrant.
A real person also has the ability to actually understand what you're saying and provide an intelligent response rather than getting back a statistical block of words that are mathematically good words to use based on the underlying model.
having the ability to do so doesn't necessarily mean they will do so.
There are plenty of terrible therapists, preists, family, and friends out there. Personally I gave up on asking for people for 'advice' 20 years ago.
No, but they have a profit motive to do so. And I'd rather assume the worst and be wrong rather than deal with another 23andMe situation in a decade. Because it will happen eventually. VC money isn't endless, and they're pissing away money like a pro athlete in a club.
You can trust them if you want, but I'm not naive enough to do that myself.
Preaching to the choir, I've dumped people from all noted categories for being shitty. I gave up on therapy about 15 years ago but my partner convinced me to go back. I looked for someone who fit my specific needs, and found someone who is rebuilding my trust in therapists
I trust my therapist not to randomly decide to give out my info because their job relies on that. AI chat bots flat out tell you they will use what you give them for their 'training' purposes, which means they have access to it and can use it or sell it as they please.
For some people, paying with their data is a lot cheaper than paying for therapy or religion. I do not fault them for this, especially if they are getting similar results.
That 'if' is doing a hurculean amount of effort, given the reports of ChatGPT psychosis, because again, you're dealing with a stochastic parrot not a real person giving you actual advice.
Believe it or not AI results are doing fine, which is why people use it.
Yes they will produce some funny/tragic results that are both memeable and newsworthy, but by and large they do what they are asked.
If the results were poor you wouldn't have adoption and your AI problem is solved.
We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.
But the argument is that people are using them because they can't afford to go to a real one, so conflating desperation to efficacy isn't a good argument, given it's that or nothing.
And we all know tons of people accept a turd product because they don't think they have a better option.
But they are now, which is the problem.
I'm not following. People may prefer cheap to expensive but that does not mean they are desperate.
The option isn't just cheap or expensive therapy. No therapy is as much an option if the therapy quality was 90s level machine chat bot.
Why is it exactly a problem that people have an extra avenue to better mental well being?
Again, your conditional statement is doing a hurculean amount of lifting here. We know that healthcare is unaffordable for a large swath of our population, but are you implying that mental healthcare (which doesn't have nearly the coverage on most plans as physical healthcare) wouldn't be in a similar state? Because mental healthcare is out of the reach of a lot of people.
False dichotomy, the chat bot can be better than the 90s bots but still be bad. And 'no therapy' isn't an option for a lot of people who will self harm as a coping mechanism.
Why is it a good thing that people are using a tool that will yes-and just about anything they say and lead to psychosis in patients with no accountability from the provider?
Yes, touching grass and talking to someone with life experience and their own opinions is better than talking to an LLM that agrees and validates everything you say, doesn't hold you accountable, and siphons your data, all while you get more and more mentally ill (because people treat talking to an LLM like they're talking to a Cortana like AGI, but the limitations of machine learning make it literally fucking impossible).