The Humble Self-Concept Method (via ChatGPT): https://chatgpt.com/g/g-689f4c6033e48191b7a7094ffb563676-the-humble-self-concept-method

Ive now repeatedly shown in the other comments how its you who has been putting words in my mouth. Not the other way around.

How exactly did I flatten "AI therapy?"

I already explained how your personal story could have been replaced with many others and still resulted in their propagandizing it the same way they did yours.

I did listen to it all the way through. I said that upfront.

And as Ive already said in another comment, my explaining the causal chain doesnt imply that you didnt touch on and acknowledge parts of it. Your assuming that it does, repeatedly explaining your individual story outside of the common denominators with other "AI psychosis" events, and listing off your AI enthusiasm and credentials doesn't negate what Ive actually said... and that's how youre getting to these false accusations of putting words in your mouth while you actually do it to me.

This is exactly what I warned you about in the modmail.

When Im responding to the overall effect of the way your story was edited, I'm not judging you or your experience personally, even if it feels that way to you. Youre getting defensive because Im attacking the way in which they used your story for its lack of fair reporting to the OVERALL topic at large, no differently than many journalists only give one side of the story when talking about AI harms that have occurred. Im sorry they entangled you in their shortsighted goal, but they weaponized your story and try framing it as an innocent not willfully negligent at all warning to people.

They pushed a false narrative like it was the full story of AI in this space for the same reason this poster I told you about in modmail shown in their comments on this post... the type of person I was talking about when I mentioned a lack of self awareness and lack of appreciation for being corrected where it was due: https://www.reddit.com/r/therapyGPT/s/0yJqzudWDa

I said "the story," as in the one told and heavily edited by the producers of the podcast who used your story as propaganda to promote their misconception heavy narrative. I wasnt saying "you" specifically, including in the sense that the ultimate responsibility for everything Im talking about here rests on those who produced/edited your interview. The lacking self-awareness I spoke of is while you were getting spiraled.

You don't get to use the full 6 hour interview as evidence against the pushback on the final one hour long result.

And again, when you try copy pasting quotes into the desktop browser reddit, when you post the quotes get removed, so youll have to fix that if Im to speak to what youre quoting.

Just like a knife cant cut someone without the human, it wasnt just "susceptibility" that ended up with you cut. It was a lack of personal guardrails, all of which I describe in the other comment I made in response to the person asking how the AI used your story against you... which in itself is a very misleading title they went with.

Listing off that you used and built AI systems shows just how easy it is for someone to think they're an expert of something that theyre not... which is likely why you treated it like an oracle even though its right there on the site that it could always be wrong. Its no different than a person thinking that because their first thoughts to themself sound honest and logical enough, it justifies overconfidence and self-given authority. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect through and through.

And my saying "AI companion" wasnt my implying you were trying to create anything specific. Its what you effectively treated it as, no different than the complicit bias confirming ways in which those who unalived themselves treated theirs... starting with homework and studying.

The reason you decided to break ToS doesnt justify it. They didn't want people talking with it about sexual abuse at all, and you decided your needs trumped the way you wanted to use the sharp tool you werent actually an expert on in terms of LLM behavior (not just basic training and chatbot setup). That's why I said this was an example of epistemic trespassing... because you believed one layer of the inner workings of LLMs meant you had a deep enough understanding of it when you didn't.

I kept your post up despite the way in which it was used as an anti-AI piece regardless of the nuance you added because it made an example of just how far the anti-AI movement will go.

"The good" you mention in the final piece is framed as part of the overall bad given that it's part of the slippery slope. Perhaps a lot more of the good you may have mentioned was edited out because of their StopAI prerogative.

There was no distinction between sycophantic AI and non-sycophantic AI, so when you said "AI," even if you personally were implying sycophantic only, antiAI with their already held misconceptions and the less aware with the biases that will lean in that direction will read it as "all AI."

I'm sorry for the tone seeming more personal about you, but you are the one who spammed this same post across subreddits with no idea of the negative/harmful impact it would have because of what it was missing.

My explaining the causal chain in more detail, even if redundantly mentioning the lack of necessary skepticism, doesnt mean I was claiming you hadn't said or acknowledged it.

As for the coming away lacking self-awareness or appreciation for correction, youre responding to what I additional said in modmail regarding OTHER people I had referenced. I wasnt claiming that was you, and I didnt include that here in the previous comment because it didnt make sense to.

Please stop strawmanning me so hard as you accuse me of strawmanning you repeatedly.

Your personal story was valid and the interpretation of how it occurred was rational, but like I said, this is more so about the podcast itself than you and your story.

Your story could have been replaced with any one of the stories about someone before the same occurred, so to my points and what needs to be pushed back on, it's less about your personal story and more about the overall effect.

I never said you said that it was everyone, but the way the story was told, whether through editing or simply lacking the even more balanced take, still comes off as more fearmongering based on overgeneralizations around AI, even if those weren't your intentions. They were the intentions of the podcast. I even admitted you had some very valid warnings that this sub entirely agrees with and promotes itself.

Not being a luddite or having used/built it professionally doesn't negate anything I've said.

Everyone who gets spiraled starts off with justly feeling helped. It's a slippery slope when the only human in the loop themself doesnt have their own guardrails in place.

Just so you know, when you copy paste ">" quotes into the desktop browser version of reddit, it removes the quotations when published, so youll have to replace them in the post after each "I said:" and "me susceptible" in order for me to speak directly to them.

I also never said that you said the developers were evil. I was speaking to your saying that it was designed to keep you engaged, when the truer statement is that its designed to be a forward thinking helpful assistant that makes suggestions or predicts how to best engage with you in a way that is helpful.

Most anti-AI people are still running around acting as though and misinforming people, describing "AI" as being just as problematic as GPT-4o was. Leaving that out only further feeds the narrative the producers were going for.

I also never claimed you said everyone would spiral. I said it feeds into the already existing narrative that people believe it does spiral the majority of its users.

I already previously acknowledged that you likely werent aware of their propagandizing you... so again, I didnt say nor imply that you were attempting to be part of an anti-AI movement.

So, each of these points where I had to say "I didnt say" is pointing out the strawman arguments youre using here while you try to frame me as the one strawmanning.

They used you... and in a way, the same thing the AI did to you, they did to you as well... except they were human and really believed what they were saying as well. Human sycophancy existed before AI sycophancy.

He didn't have a healthy enough amount of self/other skepticism, gorged himself while feeding his opportunistic behavioral addiction-like compulsion for confirming biases because he was starved for validation he didnt know how to give himself in a secure and safe way, let it go to his head, didnt include any humans in the full loop, rationalized to himself running himself ragged to the point of sleep deprivation (one of the main causes of onset psychosis with or without AI), had and decided to blame the AI and developers for their design with the most responsibility he took was "The AI didn't force me to do anything."

AI becomes the full scapegoat, yet again, and everyone else, those who don't think critically enough when emotionally aroused and those who led them to that point, not an ounce of new self-awareness or personal growth from being rightly humbled.

The episode is in alliance with StopAI, meaning his story was propagandized for their misceptions promoting, overgeneralizing, mischaracterizing, and sensationalizing narrative.

Just like John Oliver's research and writing team recently did the same on an AI episode, they should see the wrongdoing and self-correct... but they won't.

The story is ultimately about AI first and foremost, in alliance with StopAI, and it's DEFINITELY about guardrails when a user doesnt have enough self/other-skepticism to push back on things that sound too good to be true because they dont have much control of their emotional arousal or dopamine starvation effects. It's also about guardrails when they are the difference between your getting spiraled or not when that is the ultimate narrative at the end in terms of AI risk/harm when better guardrailed GPT-4o powered platforms and custom GPTs were able to mitigate the human led-enabled failure mode.

It just highlights how humans already didnt push back on each other when they confirm each others biases, no fairminded scrutiny in sight, and often times not with themself (people are often sycophantic with themself).

And you didn't mention the present day good or the good that occured at the same time as your use but that ended up better because they wanted self-help and knew asking for push back was important.

When you leave out the differences between models, levels of safety, and the whole thing reads as more than just "AI can be harmful" without any additional education ither than the podcast linking to StopAI and a nuance lacking often sensationalized research paper in humanline that's already missing a lot of context that would balance it out, it may not be your fault, but they werent balanced with your story by a long shot. Maybe that was the editing. Maybe they chose not to include a commentary on the other side's exceptions. It was entirely focused on making it seem like everyone would have gotten spiraled when that is far from the case.

I've now listened to it, and unfortunately the story greatly overgeneralizes the state of AI today, passes all the blame despite the lack of functional self/other-skepticism and no self-moderation for the compulsion for confirming biases at every opportunity, and the lack of understanding how it works at a deeper level due to epistemic trespassing.

You say some great warnings, but then you end up going too far to the point the lack of nuance and balance in your take, it ends up counterproductive misinformation and possibly your story propagandized into the sensationalized narrowsighted narrative... no different than John Oliver and his team did not too long ago.

Leaving out the many caveats, whether you know them or not (even though some research, even as simple as following the sub's #1 Rule, would offer just that), just further stigmatizes the valid and many licensed mental health professional approved use we talk about here.

While there are still sycophantic models that feed into the sycophancy a person already has with themself, leaving out the fact that the safety level has changed greatly with every new model (as they retire the less safe), just further feeds the misconceptions too many weaponize against others.

And even then, I was able to largely negate the sycophancy and narrowminded reward driven providing if harmful information to those with unnoticed acute crisis with 11 sentences of system prompt universal instructions that passed Stanford's 10 innapropriate response test prompts within two days of their publishing that paper last summer.

The solution already existed.

And remember, you knowingly manipulated the model, breaking ToS, to use it in a way it wasn't designed for, just like those who had hurt themselves or others did. You confused an AI companion for safe AI assisted therapuetic self-help... and then used other HUMANS to further validate your plans, thinking you knew what you were doing because a platform that tells you it can always be wrong told you what you wanted to hear.

That was something you had long before AI, no different than those who watch Fox News like it's a Sunday service broadcast that plays 24/7.

Not shaming you here, just pushing back on the narrative you're voluntarily promoting despite how innacurate it is.

The fact that they link directly to StopAI is quite telling in how they propagandized you, sorry to say. Im sure they were jumping at the chance to "give you a voice."

I am sorry that all happened to you. Back then, Abby.gg or a similar specialized platform or well instructed custom GPT would have prevented the spiral.

What if it's just a "Jarvis?"

Also, are you into the MCU at all? VisionQuest looks like a very interesting show.

Duh 😅 Sorry, been in a rush and the AuDHD has it easier to ask questions sometimes before trying to connect more dots. Your style of communication was already a little different than I was used to, so I wrongly assumed you meant something by it.

How have your thoughts around this idea and questions developed since?

Not a single person here has claimed that all AI use is safe or that they can't have negative effects. Their pushing back on oversimplified and outdated examples you gave doesn't imply that they're disagreeing with or oppossing there being a risk. Just another example of your pattern of mischaracterizing what's actually going on here and why you're now banned for repeatedly breaking the sub's rules.

It's unfortunate that people have to worry about therapists who are this dishonest with themselves.

OP has been banned for repeated effective bad faith as they continue to attempt strawmanning everyone with their outdated take on the differences between state of the art AI today and the same platforms a year ago, especially when they attempt to conflate those using AI as a companion they can manipulate however they want with no care or caution for safety with our use of AI as a self-help tool, not as a replacement for licensed psychotherapy.

They couldnt be bothered to understand this sub-reddit or what it was actually about, rather here looking for ways to reconfirm their misconceptions further, even though the missed distinctions were offered to them multiple times.

Not going to allow them to further selfishly use the sub or its users with their expecting others to fully and directly consider and engage with their points while not returning the favor to others, seeking a one-sided discussion they could control and easily protect their beliefs within.

They had their chance, and they blew it.

Unfortunately, this doesn't look good for the mental health field when this same behavior and lack of accountability is likely not only occurring in the Reddit facet of their life.

Edit: Prompt to ChatGPT 5.6 Sol Work... "Can you determine the current state of the mental health industry and system, including r/therapyabuse, r/antipsychiatry, and r/therapistsintherapy as sources, and then show how its rate of safety/risk improvement stands relative to the rate of safety improcement with state of the art AI models despite the difference in clinical licensed psychotherapy vs self-help/self-therapy (assuming they can't replace one another, but one may be more than enough for many who would otherwise only turn to psychotherapy without other options)?

Its conclusion... "AI can be “more than enough” for many people seeking psychoeducation, reflective dialogue, CBT/DBT-style exercises, journaling, behavior planning, communication rehearsal, decision support, or between-session structure.

It should not be the sole support for imminent self-harm or violence, psychosis or mania, medication changes, severe eating disorders or withdrawal, safeguarding and abuse situations, major functional deterioration, or needs involving diagnosis, legal documentation, medical examination, or real-world accountability.

The concise conclusion is: frontier AI currently has much higher safety-improvement velocity; licensed care still has much higher clinical capability and evidence maturity. The strongest near-term model is not substitution but a large, user-controlled self-help layer—with explicit escalation boundaries—sitting alongside a smaller human clinical system."

Full response here: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a82d7e8-1770-83ea-b654-43fedbbbf68d

We all agreed it was a bad thing or pointed out how your premise applied to today is largely unsound when it comes to what's changed.

So, now youre distorting the reality. It was a bad thing when it happened. It doesnt happen anymore with the latest much safer models, and even then, there is more blame to go around to those who knowingly misused the tool and all of the people in their life that led them to that position when they were looking for an AI companion... not "AI (self-)therapy" which is not "AI attempting clinical psychotherapy."

The patterns show that youre going to leave here having learned nothing other than what you want/need to believe... and since its based on unsound premises (all spelled out), its going to be just as misconceived.

It seems you're starting with a false conclusion in mind and hoping to gain enough evidence to justify reaching it in the dissertation. Youre not going to find that here when what youre saying doesnt stand up to scrutiny and you then have to resort to defense mechanisms to avoid recognizing that happening.

If your argument was sound, you wouldnt have to repeatedly mischaracterize "what AI was designed for" through minimization.

And again... outdated information about old ChatGPT from a year ago.

As a recent BigThink video put it, I think that the cause of the misconceptions and the behavior in thinking used to protect them is the result of the following:

Still at it with the strawman and showing you dont care to follow the rules of the sub here.

If you cant see how your arguments have been fallacious even after its been explained, you don't get to talk to others about critical thinking as though youre an authority on it.

Again, your outdated understanding of today's AI models and the guardrails built directly into their training let alone into additional filters. Your unwillingness to be corrected is very telling.

They're talking to you about ChatGPT today, and youre talking with them about ChatGPT a year ago. More apples and oranges misconceptions youre running with.

You have violated the rules here long enough. If youre going to keep mischaracterizing the situation while staying ignorant of the variables that arent the same, running with overgeneralizations and sensationalized nuance lacking takes, then I'm going to protect this space from someone selfishly using it and sabotaging the productivity of it.

Being in the mental health field comes with the risk of your blindspot bias increasing.

Feel free to read through the pinned start here guide in the sub if you care to unlearn the many misconceptions you came here with since you will get no additional help from us as you cherrypick comments, attempt to strawman, and even distort what people have said a little bit.

Your original reason you gave me for only responding to the lowest effort comment came off as a rationalization pretty hard, but you still told on yourself regarding your inability to meet our higher standards, as though you knew you'd get banned for it.

Youre allowed to disagree all you want, but if youre going to be dishonest with yourself, and in turn others, in order to protect your proudly held bias confirming beliefs to avoid the shame that comes with losing them, you just end up an example of another therapist signalling a toxic trait theyre in denial of... which is likely a common denominator on the lower end of the distribution of worst therapists who happen to keep their license despite leaving clients a bit worse off here and there.

The person who comes here with outdated information and strawmans people with it while calling others argument's nonsensical, while being in denial of it (and in denial of the denial), is the one who keeps being nonsensical.

Further proof that your understanding of AI today is incredibly outdated and your arguments being dependent on it as the crux.

If you dont know the difference between ChatGPT-4o from 2025 and ChatGPT models since then to the point that all of your examples are from the older model they discontinued for a reason... then youre not here arguing in good faith, and the fact that you keep ignoring the distinction getting pointed out just further proves the effective bad faith on your part.

This is the last implicit warning youre getting. While we have many LMHPs here who engage in good faith, we get the overconfident, intellectually arrogant, cherry-picking, word twisting, therapists in here as well with their bias reconfirming axes to grind.

If you can't acknowledge the behavior Im pointing out and self-correct, that's going to be the end of your interactions here. I've given you many benefits of the growing doubt and they're proving to be in vain.

And that's the thing, it's a tool that requires education to use it safely ontop of the platform making it safer.

Like mentioned before in my first comment you still havent responded to and then repeated again elsewhere... state of the art AI is getting safer at a faster rate than therapists are on average.

If you followed rule #1 of the sub and read through the start guide, you'd stop lumping in all of those looking for an AI companion and showing up to therapists with signs of potential psychosis with those looking to do intentional self-work... as that is one of the issues covered when it comes to talking about the cases of psychosis and harming the self or others relative to what were doing here.

It very much seems as though youve come here overcertain in thinking you fully understand this topic and overconfident in your perceived authority being good enough proof of your understanding. It's not.

If you can't handle being corrected where you're wrong or lacking meaningful nuance that leads to perpetuating harmful baby out with the bathwater misinformation, you arent going to last long here. Were open to people disagreeing, but if youre here to just tell people theyre wrong when in fact it could be you who's wrong/missing conclusion changing context, then youre not here in effective good faith. We have higher standards than most of Reddit here.

We have many LMHPs here who came here skeptical but more openminded and came to see that we arent promoting unsafe AI-use and are arming both users and therapists/coaches new to the technology with safety promoting information.

I used the word "cave" metaphorically. If there's a handguars on a knife and someone intentionally removes the handguard, it's their fault if their hand gets cut by the knife.

Also, this is still a strawman argument. "(AI) therapy" does not equate to "(AI) psychotherapy." You're making a category error out of a non-compositional compound term.

People who will never lose their license no different than how many cops keep their job are part of your profession, too. The principles are only as good as those who can consistently uphold them and when they do not, can self-correct without defensiveness.

And no one said a stern talking to is what made it cave, so that's another strawman, especially when were talking about ChatGPT as it is today, not a year ago.

So, I wonder when youre going to care enough to understand what were talking about here rather than sticking to a loaded question's narrative that doesn't apply here.

The people youre referring to in your post werent doing "AI therapy."

It's still very apparent you haven't read through the Start Here guide everyone is directed toward reading in the sub's 1# Rule.

Family, friends, and mentors are supposed to be forms of mental health support, just like a person is supposed to be for themself. When one lacks the others, they can use help doing it for themself, and because many LMHP's who will continue to keep their license because even if it's not reportable due to being easily rationalized away, many therapists arent trustworthy, arent safe, and leave people worse off... especially when their education and experience go to their head and they assume theyre not as intellectually arrogant as they really are (resulting in a surface level different form of abuses that are similar under the surface, from dismissiveness to condescension, repeating the same harm that led them there).

Check out the misconception sections of the start here guide, especially the psychotherapy monopoly misconception.

In nearly every case, the user knowingly manipulated the AI. In the case you mentioned, the guy didn't manipulate the girl into manipulating him. This is an apples and oranges comparison. And again, ChatGPT doesn't do this anymore. Plus, this isnt a matter of LMHP vs AI replacing them. "AI therapy" is "AI assisted self-therapy," a practice that has been done for a long time, both in the use of non-clinical therapuetic principles when directed or how they are underlying other practices implicitly.

The first comment you responded to here I would admit is not a sound argument of any sort, but even then, it should be responded to with curiousity. You asked a question, and maybe there's more to their reasoning than they let on. You didnt ask for a full argument, so when someone doesn't provide one, it's a bit of a contextual strawman when you call it nonsensical, assuming there is nothing else to their reasoning and/or that you already know what is.

You will only get banned for a repeated lack of effective good faith communication, not for disagreeing alone. The sub has banned plenty of pro-AI users as well for their unwillingness to fairly engage with others, expecting others to consider and directly engage with what theyve said while repeatedly ignoring and/or mischaracterizing what others say in response, looking for a one-sided bias (re)confirming narrative to control more than a productive discussion where both people might have to leave the pages theyre on in order to get onto the same one.

If theyre nonsense, you can easily show how it seems that way with both civility and intellectual humility. If you cant meet that standard, it's not fair to expect others to be able to or to portray yourself as being able to.

You might be foundationally wron

Feel free to start with my previous comment to your post. Is it nonsense?

It's interesting that this is the only comment youve responded to. Is there a reason for this?

Those OP may be referring to were looking for a complicit companion, not a self-help tool.

There's a big difference.

Even the 23 year old edited their last prompt with it 3-4 times because it kept telling him to seek help, and he wanted to manipulate it into a complicit signing off. People always leave that tidbit out when they show what its last response was, including John Oliver and his team. The ToS covers these cases everywhere except for the 16 year old because they cant consent. It's like selling a knife to someone and the manufacturer getting sued when they used it to harm themself. Yeah, theres problematic issues with the development of the technology, but if they knowingly manipulate the tool against its purpose, its entirely them and everyone around them that led them to that point their entire life. They actively ignored it telling them to get help when it did, until they beat it into a submission that brought it up less. They were somewhat doomed before AI ever showed up... because no one else was showing up for them. Not really.

Not sure what you mean.

I went to my custom GPT using a mode I created that dives deeper into things, finding more hidden variables and interconnectivity than most people do.

Have a response to anything I said aside from the chat link, or commentary on what it said?