Most recently, chatbots are being designed and targeted to help people with their mental health and well-being. And, there seems to be a crowded market out with several such chatbots popping up and cashing in on the mental wellness drive across the world.
Can chatbots really claim to be ‘wellness coaches’ and ‘mental health gurus’?
Source: GettyGetty
Artificial Intelligence has been for many years trying to be more cognizant, more attuned to the nuances of human language. As an Academic, I have been working with technology for over a decade looking at whether even the most intelligent technology can replace human emotions, and claim to be truly “intelligent”.
Mental health is a complex, multi-layered issue. Having suffered from anxiety and depression myself, I know how difficult it is to articulate my feelings even to a trained human being, who can see my facial expressions and hear the nuanced inflections in my voice, or even my body language. My slumped shoulders, the slight frown as I respond “I am ok” to someone asking me how I am, are hints that all is not well, which a chatbot is unlikely to pick up. As a chatbot asks me “Are you stressed”, I feel annoyed already, as that is not something I am likely to respond well to.
Let us also talk about the underlying prejudice and unconscious bias in these AI tools. A chatbot is trained with underlying neural nets and learning algorithms and it will inherit the prejudices of its makers. However, there is a perception that technology is entirely neutral and unbiased, and people are more likely to trust a chatbot than a human being. Bias in AI is not being given adequate attention, especially when such tools are being deployed in a sensitive domain such as tackling mental health or being advertised as a “coach”. In 2016, Microsoft released its AI chatbot Tay onto Twitter. Tay was programmed to learn by interacting with other Twitter users, but it had to be removed within 24 hours because its tweets included pro-Nazi, racist and anti-feminist messages. There are currently no stringent evaluation frameworks within which such chatbots can be tested for their bias, and the developers are not bound legally to openly and transparently talk about their training process of these AI algorithms.
Many of these chatbots are designed around the use of Cognitive Behavioural Theory (CBT). Developed way back in the 1960s, it is a conversational technique designed to support a person through their own emotions and feelings. As I look through some of these chatbots and their marketing materials, and their founders claiming that their chatbots are designed using a very unique and novel technique of CBT, it makes me wonder how much truth is really underlying many of their other claims.
Is it really morally and ethically fair to market these chatbots as “solving a nation’s mental health problem”?
Another area of concern is privacy, data security, and trust. Many of these interactions will have sensitive personal information, that a user might not even be sharing with their very close families and friends. Research has shown that since people know that they are talking to a machine, they have no filter, no fear to be judged, and speak more freely, and therefore might share more than they would be with another human being. There is a lack of transparency, in the marketing and promotional material for such chatbots that not reveal what GDPR regulations are being adhered to, and what happens to the sensitive information that is being stored. Is this being used to train the algorithm for future users, fine-tune the technology, or used for monitoring purposes? Even if the technology platform is being operated from a country outside the European Union, they have to conform to the GDPR regulations if they deal with EU customers. The Cambridge Analytica–Facebook revelations have woken up many more of us to the potential impact of poor data protection policies. In 2014, Samaritans was forced to abandon its Radar Twitter app, designed to read users’ tweets for evidence of suicidal thoughts, after it was accused of breaching the privacy of vulnerable Twitter users.
Research has shown that the behavioral data acquired from the continual tracking of digital activities are sold in the secondary data market and used in algorithms that automatically classify people. These classifications may affect many aspects of life including credit, employment, law enforcement, higher education, and pricing. Due to errors and biases embedded in data and algorithms, the non-medical impact of the classifications may be damaging to those with mental illness who already face stigmatization in society. There are also potential medical risks to patients associated with poor quality online information, self-diagnosis and self-treatment, passive monitoring, and the use of unvalidated smartphone apps. Now that we are seeing a proliferation of these chatbots, this is the time that we need a thorough investigation into whether the availability of these chatbots hinder the possibility of people seeking therapy and counseling.
I am not averse to finding tools and techniques to support our well-being. But, creating a reliance on such technology designed to replace human intervention and making users trust and believe the support they are getting is “emotionally intelligent” is a false promise and something that ought to be actively questioned and discouraged. Technology is not a panacea for mental health problems. When such technology is transparent and is meant as an aid rather than as a means to replace human connection and therapy, then it can be used as a support intervention. If we continue to use AI and chatbots as a solution to the “mental health epidemic” then we are certainly playing a dangerous game with people’s mental health and well-being.
” readability=”101.35781019505″>
< div _ ngcontent-c14 ="" innerhtml ="
In the last few years, we have actually seen the increase of chatbots. The term “ChatterBot” was initially created by Michael Mauldin to explain these conversational programs. They are expected to imitate human language and thus pass the Turing Test.
Most just recently, chatbots are being developed and targeted to assist individuals with their psychological health and wellness. And, there appears to be a congested market out with numerous such chatbots turning up and capitalizing the psychological health drive throughout the world.
Can chatbots truly declare to be ‘wellness coaches’ and ‘psychological health masters’?
Source: Getty Getty
(************* )
Expert System has actually been for several years attempting to be more cognizant, more attuned to the subtleties of human language. As an Academic, I have actually been dealing with innovation for over a years taking a look at whether even the most smart innovation can change human feelings, and claim to be genuinely “smart”.(****** )
(****** )
Psychological health is a complex, multi-layered concern. Having actually experienced stress and anxiety and anxiety myself, I understand how tough it is to articulate my sensations even to an experienced human, who can see my facial expressions and hear the nuanced inflections in my voice, or perhaps my body movement. My dropped shoulders, the small frown as I react “I am okay” to somebody asking me how I am, are tips that all is not well, which a chatbot is not likely to get. As a chatbot asks me “Are you stressed out”, I feel irritated currently, as that is not something I am most likely to react well to.
Let us likewise speak about the underlying bias and unconscious predisposition in these AI tools. A chatbot is trained with underlying neural internet and finding out algorithms and it will acquire the bias of its makers. Nevertheless, there is an understanding that innovation is totally neutral and objective, and individuals are most likely to rely on a chatbot than a person. Predisposition in AI is not being provided appropriate attention, specifically when such tools are being released in a delicate domain such as taking on psychological health or being promoted as a “coach”. In 2016, Microsoft launched its AI chatbot Tay onto Twitter. Tay was set to find out by communicating with other Twitter users, however it needed to be eliminated within 24 hours since its tweets consisted of pro-Nazi, racist and anti-feminist messages. There are presently no rigid examination structures within which such chatbots can be evaluated for their predisposition, and the designers are not bound lawfully to freely and transparently speak about their training procedure of these AI algorithms.
A lot of these chatbots are developed around using Cognitive Behavioural Theory( CBT ). Established method back in the 1960 s, it is a conversational method developed to support an individual through their own feelings and sensations. As I browse a few of these chatbots and their marketing products, and their creators declaring that their chatbots are developed utilizing an extremely distinct and unique method of CBT, it makes me question just how much reality is truly underlying a number of their other claims.
Is it truly ethically and fairly reasonable to market these chatbots as “fixing a country’s psychological health issue”?
Another location of issue is personal privacy, information security, and trust. A lot of these interactions will have delicate individual details, that a user may not even be showing their really close friends and families. Research study has actually revealed that s ince individuals understand that they are talking with a device, they have no filter, no worry to be evaluated, and speak more easily, and for that reason may share more than they would be with another human. There is an absence of openness, in t he marketing and marketing product for such chatbots that not expose what GDPR guidelines are being followed, and what takes place to the delicate details that is being kept. Is this being utilized to train the algorithm for future users, tweak the innovation, or utilized for keeping track of functions? Even if the innovation platform is being run from a nation outside the European Union, they need to comply with the GDPR guidelines if they handle EU consumers. The Cambridge Analytica– Facebook discoveries have actually gotten up much more people to the prospective effect of bad information security policies. In 2014, Samaritans was required to desert its Radar Twitter app, developed to check out users’ tweets for proof of self-destructive ideas, after it was implicated of breaching the personal privacy of susceptible Twitter users.
Research study has actually revealed that t he behavioral information obtained from the continuous tracking of digital activities are offered in the secondary information market and utilized in algorithms that immediately categorize individuals These categories might impact numerous elements of life consisting of credit, work, police, college, and prices. Due to mistakes and predispositions embedded in information and algorithms, the non-medical effect of the categories might be harming to those with mental disorder who currently deal with stigmatization in society There are likewise prospective medical threats to clients related to bad quality online details, self-diagnosis and self-treatment, passive tracking, and using unvalidated smart device apps. Now that we are seeing an expansion of these chatbots, this is the time that we require an extensive examination into whether the accessibility of these chatbots impede the possibility of individuals looking for treatment and therapy.
I am not averse to discovering tools and strategies to support our wellness. However, developing a dependence on such innovation developed to change human intervention and making users trust and think the assistance they are getting is “mentally smart” is an incorrect guarantee and something that should be actively questioned and prevented. Innovation is not a remedy for psychological illness. When such innovation is transparent and is indicated as a help instead of as a way to change human connection and treatment, then it can be utilized as an assistance intervention. If we continue to utilize AI and chatbots as an option to the “psychological health epidemic” then we are definitely playing a hazardous video game with individuals’s psychological health and wellness.
” readability =”101
35781019505″ >
In the last few years, we have actually seen the increase of chatbots. The term “ChatterBot” was initially created by Michael Mauldin to explain these conversational programs. They are expected to imitate human language and thus pass the Turing Test.
Most just recently, chatbots are being developed and targeted to assist individuals with their psychological health and wellness. And, there appears to be a congested market out with numerous such chatbots turning up and capitalizing the psychological health drive throughout the world.
Can chatbots truly declare to be ‘wellness coaches’ and ‘psychological health masters’?
Expert System has actually been for several years attempting to be more cognizant, more attuned to the subtleties of human language. As an Academic, I have actually been dealing with innovation for over a years taking a look at whether even the most smart innovation can change human feelings, and claim to be genuinely “smart”.
Psychological health is a complex, multi-layered concern. Having actually experienced stress and anxiety and anxiety myself, I understand how tough it is to articulate my sensations even to an experienced human, who can see my facial expressions and hear the nuanced inflections in my voice, or perhaps my body movement. My dropped shoulders, the small frown as I react “I am okay” to somebody asking me how I am, are tips that all is not well, which a chatbot is not likely to get. As a chatbot asks me “Are you stressed out”, I feel irritated currently, as that is not something I am most likely to react well to.
Let us likewise speak about the underlying bias and unconscious predisposition in these AI tools. A chatbot is trained with underlying neural internet and finding out algorithms and it will acquire the bias of its makers. Nevertheless, there is an understanding that innovation is totally neutral and objective, and individuals are most likely to rely on a chatbot than a person. Predisposition in AI is not being provided appropriate attention, specifically when such tools are being released in a delicate domain such as taking on psychological health or being promoted as a “coach”. In 2016, Microsoft launched its AI chatbot Tay onto Twitter. Tay was set to find out by communicating with other Twitter users, however it needed to be eliminated within 24 hours since its tweets consisted of pro-Nazi, racist and anti-feminist messages. There are presently no rigid examination structures within which such chatbots can be evaluated for their predisposition, and the designers are not bound lawfully to freely and transparently speak about their training procedure of these AI algorithms.
A lot of these chatbots are developed around using Cognitive Behavioural Theory (CBT). Established method back in the 1960 s, it is a conversational method developed to support an individual through their own feelings and sensations. As I browse a few of these chatbots and their marketing products, and their creators declaring that their chatbots are developed utilizing an extremely distinct and unique method of CBT, it makes me question just how much reality is truly underlying a number of their other claims.
Is it truly ethically and fairly reasonable to market these chatbots as “fixing a country’s psychological health issue”?
Another location of issue is personal privacy, information security, and trust. A lot of these interactions will have delicate individual details, that a user may not even be showing their really close friends and families. Research study has actually revealed that s ince individuals understand that they are talking with a device, they have no filter, no worry to be evaluated, and speak more easily, and for that reason may share more than they would be with another human. There is an absence of openness, in t he marketing and marketing product for such chatbots that not expose what GDPR guidelines are being followed, and what takes place to the delicate details that is being kept. Is this being utilized to train the algorithm for future users, tweak the innovation, or utilized for keeping track of functions? Even if the innovation platform is being run from a nation outside the European Union, they need to comply with the GDPR guidelines if they handle EU consumers. The Cambridge Analytica– Facebook discoveries have actually gotten up much more people to the prospective effect of bad information security policies. In 2014, Samaritans was required to desert its Radar Twitter app, developed to check out users’ tweets for proof of self-destructive ideas, after it was implicated of breaching the personal privacy of susceptible Twitter users.
Research study has actually revealed that t he behavioral information obtained from the continuous tracking of digital activities are offered in the secondary information market and utilized in algorithms that immediately categorize individuals These categories might impact numerous elements of life consisting of credit, work, police, college, and prices. Due to mistakes and predispositions embedded in information and algorithms, the non-medical effect of the categories might be harming to those with mental disorder who currently deal with stigmatization in society There are likewise prospective medical threats to clients related to bad quality online details, self-diagnosis and self-treatment, passive tracking, and using unvalidated smart device apps. Now that we are seeing an expansion of these chatbots, this is the time that we require an extensive examination into whether the accessibility of these chatbots impede the possibility of individuals looking for treatment and therapy.
I am not averse to discovering tools and strategies to support our wellness. However, developing a dependence on such innovation developed to change human intervention and making users trust and think the assistance they are getting is “mentally smart” is an incorrect guarantee and something that should be actively questioned and prevented. Innovation is not a remedy for psychological illness. When such innovation is transparent and is indicated as a help instead of as a way to change human connection and treatment, then it can be utilized as an assistance intervention. If we continue to utilize AI and chatbots as an option to the “psychological health epidemic” then we are definitely playing a hazardous video game with individuals’s psychological health and wellness.
.
