[flagged]
And the thing when it comes to therapy is, a real therapist doesn't have to be prompted and can auto adjust to you without your explicit say so. They're not overly affirming, can stop you from doing things and say no to you. LLMs are the opposite of that.
Also, as a lay person how do i know the right prompts for <llm of the week> to work correctly?
Don't get me wrong, i would love for AI to be on par or better than a real life therapist, but we're not there yet, and i would advise everyone against using AI for therapy.
I am very experienced with creating prompts and agents, and good at research, and I believe that my agent along with the journaling tool would be more effective than many "average" human therapists.
It seems effective in dealing with my own issues.
Obviously I am biased.
> research aided by my agent Also not good enough.
As an example: Yesterday i asked Claude and ChatGPT to design a circuitry that monitors pulses form S0 power meter interface. It designed a circuit that didn't have any external power to the circuit. When asked it said "ah yes, let me add that" and proceeded to confuse itself and add stuff that are not needed, but are explained and sounds reasonable if you don't know anything. After numerous attempts it didn't produce any working design.
So how can you verify that the therapist agent you've built will work with something as complex as humans, when it can't even do basic circuitry with known laws of physics and spec & data sheets of no more than 10 components?
What makes you qualified to assert this?
(Now, I dislike arguments from authority, but as an engineer in the area of life/safety-critical systems I've also learned the importance of humility.)
If they are mentally ill, LLMs cannot help them.
I don't know man, at least the people posting this stuff on LinkedIn generally know its nonsense. They are not drinking the kool-aid, they are trying to get into the business of making it.
Like in 2023, everything is still a demo, there's nothing that could be considered reliable.
But when the situation gets more complex or simply a bit unexpected, would that model reliably recognize it lacks knowledge and escalate to a specialist? Or would it still hallucinate instead?
Okay, what specifically has improved in that time, which would allay the doctors specific concerns?
> do certain core aspects
And not others? Is there a delineated list of such failings in the current set of products?
> given the right prompts and framework
A flamethrower is perfectly safe given the right training and support. In the wrong hands it's likely to be a complete and total disaster in record short time.
> a weak prompt that was not written by a subject matter expert
So how do end users ever get to use a tool like this?
The same way end users ever get to use a tool. Open source or an online service, for example.