[romanows]

Yes, but also "An... entity may not provide... therapy... to the public unless the therapy... services are conducted by... a licensed professional".

It's not obvious to me as a non-lawyer whether a chat history could be decided to be "therapy" in a courtroom. If so, this could count as a violation. Probably lots of law around this stuff for lawyers and doctors cornered into giving advice at parties already that might apply (e.g., maybe a disclaimer is enough to workaround the prohibition)?

[germinalphrase]

Functionally, it probably amounts to two restrictions: a chatbot cannot formally diagnose & a chatbot cannot bill insurance companies for services rendered.

[lupire]

Most "therapy" services are not providing a diagnosis. Diagnosis comes from an evaluation before therapy starts, or sometimes not at all. (You can pay to talk to someone without a diagnosis.)

The prohibition is mainly on accepting any payment for advertised therapy service, if not following the rules of therapy (licensure, AI guidelines).

Likewise for medicine and law.

[bluefirebrand]

Many therapy services have the ability to diagnose as therapy proceeds though

[gopher_space]

After a bit of consideration I’m actually ok with codifying Bad Ideas. We could expand this.

[fc417fc802]

These things usually (not a lawyer tho) come down to the claims being actively made. For example "engineer" is often (typically?) a protected title but that doesn't mean you'll get in trouble for drafting up your own blueprints. Even for other people, for money. Just that you need to make it abundantly clear that you aren't a licensed engineer.

I imagine "Pay us to talk to our friendly chat bot about your problems. (This is not licensed therapy. Seek therapy instead if you feel you need it.)" would suffice.

[pessimizer]

For a long time, Mensa couldn't give people IQ scores from the tests they administered because somehow, legally, they would be acting medically. This didn't change until about 10 years ago.

Defining non-medical things as medicine and requiring approval by particular private institutions in order to do them is simply corruption. I want everybody to get therapy, but there's no difference in outcomes whether you get it from a licensed therapist using some whacked out paradigm that has no real backing, or from a priest. People need someone to talk to who doesn't have unclear motives, or any motives really, other than to help. When you hand money to a therapist, that's nearly what you get. A priest has dedicated his life to this.

The only problem with therapists in that respect is that there's an obvious economic motivation to string a patient along forever. Insurance helps that by cutting people off at a certain point, but that's pretty brutal and not motivated by concern for the patient.

[watwut]

If you think human therapists intentionally string patients forever, wait to see what tech people can achieve with gamified therapists literally A/B tested to string people along. Oh, and we will then blame the people for "choosing" to engage with that.

Also, the proposition is dubious, because there are waitlists for therapists. Plus, therapist can actually loose the license while the chatbot cant, no matter how bad the chatbot gets.

[fl0id]

This. At least here therapists don’t have a problem getting new patients.