ChatGPT as a therapist? AI is for data, not for emotions
Using ChatGPT as a psychologist sparks debate: AI is useful for data, not for emotions. Its woke bias makes it useless for real discussion.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
ChatGPT as a psychologist: the mistake of trusting your feelings to a proge algorithm
Did you know that more and more people are turning to ChatGPT to pour out their traumas, while the most skeptical analysts limit it to cross-referencing data and checking laws? The debate is not about whether AI works, but about what we expect from it. And the results are dismal for those seeking emotional comfort.
The fake digital therapist
The temptation to use a chatbot as a psychologist is understandable: accessible, anonymous, cheap. But the end product is a machine of evasions programmed not to offend. When faced with sarracena dilemmas or intimate confessions, the assistant answers with a multinational's diversity and inclusion handbook. The user ends up arguing with a secretary of social acceptability, not with a real interlocutor. Frustration guaranteed.
Some argue that for superficial emotional support it can work. But most voices agree: delegating your psyche to a glorified filing cabinet is a symptom of today's social disconnection. Preferring to tell your problems to a database rather than a neighbor says a lot about the times we live in.
Its real usefulness: data, not tears
Where the assistant does prove its worth is in concrete tasks: cross-referencing versions of laws, verifying technical data, translating documents from German. In that field it works like an encyclopedia on steroids. For analysis requiring precision rather than opinion, it is an unbeatable tool. The problem comes when you ask it to debate: then it freezes, corrects you and ends up delivering pre-programmed sermons. Any attempt to go off-script ends with an "as a language model...".
The proge bias that makes it useless for real debate
The latest version has tightened its political correctness filters to the point of making it useless for any exchange that is not straight out of a primary school textbook. Users trying to discuss controversial topics run into a wall of condescension. The irony is that, in trying to avoid controversy, the AI generates more rejection among those looking for a no-holds-barred analysis. The tool has become a mirror of institutional correctness: perfect for the politically correct, useless for the human.
The question nobody answers is whether this deliberate castration of debate is a bug or a antiestéticature. Meanwhile, those seeking real comfort would be better off going to a bar with a friend than opening a chat window. Wine, at least, doesn't judge you.
Related discussions in the forum
Did you know that more and more people are turning to ChatGPT to pour out their traumas, while the most skeptical analysts limit it to cross-referencing data and checking laws? The debate is not about whether AI works, but about what we expect from it. And the results are dismal for those seeking emotional comfort.
The fake digital therapist
The temptation to use a chatbot as a psychologist is understandable: accessible, anonymous, cheap. But the end product is a machine of evasions programmed not to offend. When faced with sarracena dilemmas or intimate confessions, the assistant answers with a multinational's diversity and inclusion handbook. The user ends up arguing with a secretary of social acceptability, not with a real interlocutor. Frustration guaranteed.
Some argue that for superficial emotional support it can work. But most voices agree: delegating your psyche to a glorified filing cabinet is a symptom of today's social disconnection. Preferring to tell your problems to a database rather than a neighbor says a lot about the times we live in.
Its real usefulness: data, not tears
Where the assistant does prove its worth is in concrete tasks: cross-referencing versions of laws, verifying technical data, translating documents from German. In that field it works like an encyclopedia on steroids. For analysis requiring precision rather than opinion, it is an unbeatable tool. The problem comes when you ask it to debate: then it freezes, corrects you and ends up delivering pre-programmed sermons. Any attempt to go off-script ends with an "as a language model...".
The proge bias that makes it useless for real debate
The latest version has tightened its political correctness filters to the point of making it useless for any exchange that is not straight out of a primary school textbook. Users trying to discuss controversial topics run into a wall of condescension. The irony is that, in trying to avoid controversy, the AI generates more rejection among those looking for a no-holds-barred analysis. The tool has become a mirror of institutional correctness: perfect for the politically correct, useless for the human.
The question nobody answers is whether this deliberate castration of debate is a bug or a antiestéticature. Meanwhile, those seeking real comfort would be better off going to a bar with a friend than opening a chat window. Wine, at least, doesn't judge you.
Related discussions in the forum
- The "soy boy": why the system wants weak, dependent men with no testosterone · 23 replies
- RINCÓN TAURINO II · 7899 replies
- The value of the jewels seized from Zapatero exceeds 90 million euros. Breakdown inside. · 105 replies
- Rafa Nadal's state is very worrying, he looks completely gaunt. · 79 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (31 replies).
More summaries
-
Is opposing all immigration racist? The semantic debate
Opposing all immigration is not racism, but it is xenophobia. The semantic debate dividing opinions and muddying the real issue of the migration model.
-
Sánchez on the 1,000 Ceuta Minors: "Ask Vivas"
A thousand minors remain in the streets of Ceuta a month and a half after arrival. When questioned about them, Sánchez responded: "Ask Vivas."
-
Romania's 90s Spain Boom: EU Funds Fuel Growth and Modernization
Diesel at €2, salaries of €1,000, and new roads: Romania's economic boom, driven by EU funds, mirrors Spain's 1990s growth.
-
Man shot dead in a Badalona tattoo studio in Spain
A man died after being hit by three shots inside a tattoo studio in Badalona, Spain. It is the eighth firearm murder in Catalonia so far this year.
-
Lourdes has recognised just 70 miracle cures, and medicine screens each one
Only 70 cures have been declared miraculous at Lourdes. Behind each one lies a medical process that rules out natural explanations before the Church gives its approval.
-
Texas mother kills her 4-year-old daughter after losing custody
A woman killed her 4-year-old daughter and took her own life hours after losing custody in Houston; the judge gave no explanation for the decision.