Well, something being fit-for-purpose is an important consideration. If it tells people that the world would probably be a better place without their broke, uneducated, unwell self and that their life statistically is unlikely to get any better because they're talking to an AI and not a real human being, that's a huge ethical problem, and the LLM is not an appropriate solution.
I can get LLMs to tell me all kinds of dangerous things. The more text you give it, the higher the chance of those safety measures going out the window, especially if that conversation has a lot of back-and-forth over time. When people explain their problems, they use a lot of words and a lot of negative sentiment.
Not talked about this before with anyone, but as a case-in-point, I managed to make an LLM's safety features go completely out the window over me recalling a low-point in my life. I would not recommend that shit in good faith to anybody.
The waiting list for that is considerable. You can (usually) get a GP for free, and they can chuck antidepressants at you, but that's not quite the same thing.
For a non-acute mental health issue that doesn't seem unreasonable. But do you know how it works after that waiting period? Are you limited to a certain number of sessions after which you have to reapply & wait again, or can you continue on?
Having to wait in the US is also not uncommon, thought it's easier if you live in more populated areas. Psychiatrists are always much harder though, even in populated areas, and many GP's are reluctant to prescribe anything more than an SSRI. If a mood stabilizer or anything else is necessary then you could be waiting 6 months for a first visit with a psychiatrist. Unless you have the money: There is high enough demand and low enough supply that many (and often the better ones) don't accept insurance at all, an intake visit runs up to $1000, a full visit $500, and a 20-minute "medication maintenance" visit is still $250. Also if someone is suicidal they can jump the 6-month line by going to the nearest ER.
Are psychiatrists difficult to get in the UK as well?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/10/nhs-mental-h...
We didn't get any anti-depressants. More info: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/talking-therapies-medicine-...
I've used one of the free NHS therapists and frankly it was worse than talking to a chatbot. They clearly follow a script and don't exhibit empathy. They hurry you through the stages in their scripts so that they can say they're done with you as quickly as possible. I've spoken to a few close friends and they had similar experiences.
I can't even get angry at them, because I know how under-resourced the NHS is. The reality is that mental health services are just too expensive in their current form.
The cost still exists. It’s just that the NHS budget pays for it - at the margin drawing resources away from nursing salaries and cancer treatments.
My step-father has paranoid schizophrenia. He didn't ask to be born with it, but if it weren't for the NHS, he would be dead. That's a fact.
Equally, he couldn't afford nor access appropriate services in his home country of Canada, and ended up homeless on the street for years on end, and ended up with a criminal record because of his untreated paranoid schizophrenia, which meant he negatively impacted others.
I've been suicidal myself at times. I have a friend being treated for cancer currently, I've had family members treated for cancer in old age. A life is a life.
The problem is inadequate funding, not anybody other than cancer patients trying to not kill themselves. The problem is the elected party spaffing countless hundreds of billions on failed projects that are completely irrelevant to cancer treatment or the NHS. The problem is not increasing salaries relative to inflation or paying them what they're worth. The problem is not people seeking therapy.
Not at all. I merely stated that there’s a competition in resources between the two.
Innovations that improve the quality/cost of mental health treatment are therefore still valuable in an NHS system where treatment is free to the patient because they allow more resources to be directed towards the rest of the healthcare system. Or alternatively, expand the coverage of mental health treatment for the same budget.
But why compare/contrast those two? They're both health care, after all. There's competition in resources between all specialties. Why is contrasting those two particular ones worthwhile as opposed to say, stating there's a competition between oncologists and gastroenterologists?
As to the choice of specialties in the comparison, mental health was the subject of discussion in the thread and the other selected speciality was arbitrary because all specialties compete for resources.
thats a funny way to deflect responsibility from the voter. unless you're saying the elections are rigged? :)
Interesting question however, is I wonder if people will see these bots as a solution to the issue that human empathy is finite. As a human you can't support a depressed person forever if your actions do not cause change, there's only so much mental strain a person can handle moreso someone untrained. Many people talk of going no-contact with those that are extremely troublesome after so long, even if they're family. I don't really know how to solve that exhaustion except telling them to go elsewhere, which could be seen by some vulnerable persons as abandonment
On the other hand a chatbot with no filters will never tire of you
Whilst I do support the idea that "fit" is important, statements like these about unsupported statistics pulled out of thin air are damaging in and of themselves. It's sentiment like this that put me off seeking help for my mental health for twenty years because it just seemed like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The reality was very different.
Chatbots may never tire of you, but neither will a video game. Both are shallow and not a representation of reality, nor a solution to a problem.
Here's the thing: professionals are professionals. For as long as a patient sees them, they are paying their bills.
Exhaustion in non-professionals is because people trauma-dump and expect someone to be their guardian/protector/shield, if they're friends with them, they're statistically likely to be trying to manage their own problems already. In the pre-digital era, people would otherwise "need" a support network if they didn't have access to professionals. We didn't have a theory of psychology or professional therapists in the past. The early tribe/clan either took care of each other, or they let people suffer. Different peoples did different things with their mentally ill, elderly, physically ill, or unwanted female children.
Ego-centricity is a trait of modernity, not necessarily something reflective of the past because we can just replace the human gears in the system now without much hassle.
This is why I don’t bother tbh. I have no interest in throwing away money by “throwing the dice” so to say until I find someone who is a good fit. Some friends recommend to a site that aggregates mental health professionals in the area, and almost none of them were actively accepting new clients, except the ones who specialize in things that don’t apply to me.
Are these considered the most productive years of your life? What are the most productive years of your life worth? What could they be worth if you weren't mentally fucked? That question is going to vary depending on the individual, but even if you're not interested in the monetary worth—well, you only go round the once. Is it money thrown away if you eventually solve your problem? The way to look at is R&D of your mental health.
Wishing you better mental health.
It is the same grift as used by faith healing and woo. If anything is better than nothing then a placebo(nothing) is better than nothing.
This is unacceptable and dehumanising.
Are you sure? I can certainly imagine alternatives that would be worse than nothing.