Artificial intelligence vs. human expert: Licensed mental health clinicians' blinded evaluation of AI-generated and expert psychological advice on quality, empathy, and perceived authorship

Abstract

Background: The use of artificial intelligence for psychological advice shows promise for enhancing accessibility and reducing costs, but it remains unclear whether AI-generated advice can match the quality and empathy of experts. Method: In a blinded, comparative cross-sectional design, licensed psychologists and psychotherapists assessed the quality, empathy, and authorship of psychological advice, which was either AI-generated or authored by experts. Results: = .001), with 93.55 % of participants preferring the advice they believed came from an expert, irrespective of its true origin. Conclusions: AI demonstrates potential to match expert performance in asynchronous written psychological advice, but biases favoring perceived expert authorship may hinder its broader acceptance. Mitigating these biases and evaluating AI's trustworthiness and empathy are important next steps for safe and effective integration of AI in clinical practice.

Ähnliche Arbeiten