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.
If the results were poor you wouldn’t have adoption
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.
We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.
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.