• asap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    A bit disingenuous not to mention this part:

    Further, participants in most cases preferred ChatGPT’s take on the matter at hand. That was based on five factors: whether the response understood the speaker, showed empathy, was appropriate for the therapy setting, was relevant for various cultural backgrounds, and was something a good therapist would say.

    • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 days ago

      Patients explaining they liked what they heared - not if it is correct or relevant to the cause. There is not even a pipeline for escalation, because AIs don’t think.

        • asap@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          You can’t say “Exactly” when you tl;dr’d and removed one of the most important parts of the article.

          Your human summary was literally worse than AI 🤦

          I’m getting downvoted, which makes me suspect people think I’m cheerleading for AI. I’m not. I’m sure it sucks compared to a therapist. I’m just saying that the tl;dr also sucked.