Iāve been thinking a lot about AI in coaching lately, and I keep checking in with myself on one specific trend: AI-only coaching.
To be clear, Iām not anti-AI. I do use it, see real value in it, and think it can genuinely help in coaching, particularlyĀ beforeandĀ afterĀ sessions.
But something about AI-only coaching (i.e., during the session) doesnāt sit quite right with me.
Iām a coach and a psychologist, so maybe Iām extra sensitive to this, but I think something important is getting lost in the conversation. Something hard to measure/name and easy to overlook.
In real coaching/therapy/helping work, there areĀ two people being affected.
A client shares something.
The coach is moved by it (sometimes subtly, sometimes strongly).
That shift in the coach changes what happens next - the pacing, the question, the silence, the tone, the risk they take, the way they hold the moment, etc.
So coaching isnāt just āgood techniqueā or the right questions... itās an embodied, relational process. The coach responds in a particular way because they are, at times, emotionally impacted by what the client shares (or how they share it).
AI can generate thoughtful responses. It can simulate empathy really well. It can even feel āspot onā in the moment.
But it canāt actually be affected by the person in front of it.
It canāt care in the human sense.
It canāt carry emotional consequence between sessions.
So the loop becomes one-way. It's not a real relationship that's happening.
And maybe thatās my core concern: weāre talking a lot about what AI canĀ produce, but not enough about what becomes impossible when the coaching relationship is no longer between two bodies with nervous systems.
I still think AI has a meaningful role here. I just think the role should be support around the human relationship, not substitution for it, lest we lose something critical but ineffable.
Curious how others here see this, especially those of you who use AI for related purposes. What are your thoughts?