Future You: A Conversation with an AI-Generated Future Self Reduces Anxiety, Negative Emotions, and Increases Future Self-Continuity

Pataranutaporn, P., et al. (2024, May 21).

arXiv.org.

Research is here.

Abstract

We introduce "Future You," an interactive, brief, single-session, digital chat intervention designed to improve future self-continuity--the degree of connection an individual feels with a temporally distant future self--a characteristic that is positively related to mental health and wellbeing. Our system allows users to chat with a relatable yet AI-powered virtual version of their future selves that is tuned to their future goals and personal qualities. To make the conversation realistic, the system generates a "synthetic memory"--a unique backstory for each user--that creates a through line between the user's present age (between 18-30) and their life at age 60. The "Future You" character also adopts the persona of an age-progressed image of the user's present self. After a brief interaction with the "Future You" character, users reported decreased anxiety, and increased future self-continuity. This is the first study successfully demonstrating the use of personalized AI-generated characters to improve users' future self-continuity and wellbeing.

Limitations and Ethical Considerations

Our work opens new possibilities for AI-powered, inter-active future self interventions, but there are limitations to address. Future research should: directly compare our FutureYou intervention with other validated interventions; examine the longitudinal effects of using the Future You platform; leverage more sophisticated ML models to potentially increase realism; and consider how interacting with a future self might reconstruct personal decisions as interpersonal ones between present and future selves as a psychological mechanism that explains treatment effects. Potential misuses of AI-generated future selves to be mindful of include: inaccurately depicting the future in a way that harmfully influences present behavior; endorsing negative behaviors; and hyper-personalization that reduces real human relationships and adversely impacts health. These challenges are part of a broader conversation on the ethics of human-AI interaction and AI-generated media happening at both personal and policy levels. Researchers must further investigate and ensure the ethical use of this technology.

-----------

Here are some thoughts:

Promise and Potential:

The concept of feeling connected to your future self (future self-continuity) is crucial for mental well-being. "Future You" could be a powerful tool to bridge that gap, leading to better decision-making and reduced anxiety about the unknown. Tailoring the AI-generated future self to the user's goals and personality is key. This personal touch can foster a sense of believability and connection.

Points to Consider:

*AI biases could unintentionally influence the future self's persona. We need to ensure the system promotes a healthy and realistic vision of the future, not a distorted one.

*Not everyone has access to such technology. It's important to consider how to make this tool widely available and address potential biases based on socioeconomic factors.

*While "Future You" can be a valuable tool, it shouldn't replace critical thinking and personal agency. People should still be empowered to make their own choices.

Pentagon data reveals US soldier more likely to die by suicide than in combat

Tom Vanden Brook

USA Today

Originally posted 12 June 24

U.S. soldiers were almost nine times more likely to die by suicide than by enemy fire, according to a Pentagon study for the five-year period ending in 2019.

The study, published in May by the Defense Health Agency, found that suicide was the leading cause of death among active-duty soldiers from 2014 to 2019. There were 883 suicide deaths during that time period. Accidents were the No. 2 cause with 814 deaths. There were 96 combat deaths.

The suicide figures from 2019 predate some Army and Pentagon initiatives to combat suicide, including a workforce that addresses harmful behaviors like alcohol abuse that can contribute to deaths by suicide. In addition, combat deaths declined from 31 in 2014 to 16 in 2019 as deployments to war zones in the Middle East and Afghanistan decreased.

Suicide, meanwhile, has increased among active-duty soldiers, according to figures obtained by USA TODAY. So far in 2024, 55 soldiers have died by suicide.

Army officials, in an interview with USA TODAY, pointed to increasing rates of suicide in U.S. society as whole that are reflected in their ranks. They also talked about new tactics they're using to reduce suicide.

The info is here.

Here are some comments:

A recent Pentagon study revealed a shocking truth: active-duty US soldiers are far more likely to die by suicide than in combat. This data exposes a hidden mental health crisis within the military community.

The stresses of combat and the challenges of reintegration into civilian life can have a devastating impact. To address this, we need a cultural shift. Seeking help for mental health struggles must be seen as a sign of strength, not weakness.

The solution requires a multi-pronged approach. We need to prioritize readily available mental health services, address substance abuse issues, and strengthen social support networks within the military.  Most importantly, we need to ensure soldiers are equipped to handle the psychological challenges they face, both during and after service.

Let's not forget - suicide is preventable. By raising awareness, reducing stigma, and providing effective resources, we can support our soldiers and ensure they get the help they deserve.

Fake therapist fooled hundreds online until she died, state records say

Brett Kelman

CBS Health Watch

Originally posted 2 July 24

Hundreds of Americans may have unknowingly received therapy from an untrained impostor who masqueraded as an online therapist, possibly for as long as two years, and the deception crumbled only when she died, according to state health department records.

Peggy A. Randolph, a social worker who was licensed in Florida and Tennessee and formerly worked for Brightside Health, a nationwide online therapy company, is accused of helping her wife impersonate her in online sessions, according to an investigation report from the Florida Department of Health.

The Florida report says the couple "defrauded" patients through a "coordinated effort": As Randolph treated patients in person, her wife pretended to be her in telehealth sessions with Brightside patients. The deceit was discovered after the wife died last year and a patient realized they'd been talking to the wrong person, according to a Tennessee Department of Health settlement agreement.

Records from both states identify Randolph's wife only by her initials, T.R., but her full name is in her obituary: Tammy G. Heath-Randolph. Therapists are generally expected to have at least a master's degree, but Randolph's wife was "not licensed or trained to provide any sort of counseling services," according to the Tennessee agreement.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This case of an impostor therapist masquerading as a licensed professional in online therapy sessions raises numerous ethical, healthcare, and psychotherapy concerns. The most obvious issues include the severe breach of trust between therapist and patient, the potential harm caused to vulnerable individuals seeking mental health support, and the serious violations of patient privacy.  The incident also highlights the critical importance of proper licensing and credentialing in healthcare, especially in telehealth settings.

This case also reveals less apparent but equally significant problems. It exposes potential vulnerabilities in telehealth systems, particularly in verifying the identity of online therapists, suggesting a need for more robust authentication methods.

The alleged involvement of the therapist's wife introduces complex ethical dilemmas regarding personal relationships in professional healthcare contexts. Furthermore, the fact that this deception went unnoticed for an extended period might indicate systemic issues such as therapist burnout or inadequate oversight in the mental health field. The case also demonstrates the challenges in regulating and monitoring telehealth services that operate across multiple states.

Interestingly, this real-life impostor scenario could potentially exacerbate feelings of imposter syndrome among both genuine therapists and patients. The posthumous discovery of the deception presents unique challenges in addressing the harm caused and seeking appropriate resolutions.

Lastly, the financial aspect of this case, where compensation was received for fraudulent sessions, raises important questions about the potential for monetary incentives to compromise ethical standards in healthcare. This incident underscores the urgent need for stronger safeguards in telehealth, improved oversight mechanisms, and a renewed focus on maintaining the integrity of the therapist-patient relationship in the evolving landscape of digital healthcare.

Can a Robot Lie? Exploring the Folk Concept of Lying as Applied to Artificial Agents

Kneer, Markus (2021).

Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13032

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4364040

Abstract

The potential capacity for robots to deceive has received considerable attention recently. Many papers explore the technical possibility for a robot to engage in deception for beneficial purposes (e.g., in education or health). In this short experimental paper, I focus on a more paradigmatic case: robot lying (lying being the textbook example of deception) for nonbeneficial purposes as judged from the human point of view. More precisely, I present an empirical experiment that investigates the following three questions: (a) Are ordinary people willing to ascribe deceptive intentions to artificial agents? (b) Are they as willing to judge a robot lie as a lie as they would be when human agents engage in verbal deception? (c) Do people blame a lying artificial agent to the same extent as a lying human agent? The response to all three questions is a resounding yes. This, I argue, implies that robot deception and its normative consequences deserve considerably more attention than they presently receive.

Conclusion

In a preregistered experiment, I explored the folk concept of lying for both human agents and robots. Consistent with previous findings for human agents, the majority of participants think that it is possible to lie with a true claim, and hence in cases where there is no actual deception. What seems to matter more for lying are intentions to deceive. Contrary to what might have been expected, intentions of this sort are equally ascribed to robots as to humans. It thus comes as no surprise that robots are judged as lying, and blameworthy for it, to similar degrees as human agents. Future work in this area should attempt to replicate these findings manipulating context and methodology. Ethicists and legal scholars should explore whether, and to what degree, it might be morally appropriate and legally necessary to restrict the use of deceptive artificial agents.

Here is a summary:

This research dives into whether people perceive robots as capable of lying. The study investigates the concept of lying and its application to artificial intelligence (AI) through experiments. Kneer explores if humans ascribe deceitful intent to robots and judge their deceptions as harshly as human lies. The findings suggest that people are likely to consider robots capable of lying and hold them accountable for deception. The study argues that this necessitates further exploration of the ethical implications of robot deception in our interactions with AI.

Effects of intellectual humility in the context of affective polarization: Approaching and avoiding others in controversial political discussions

Knöchelmann, L., & Cohrs, J. C. (2024).

Journal of personality and social psychology, 

10.1037/pspi0000462.

Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000462

Abstract

Affective polarization, the extent to which political actors treat each other as disliked outgroups, is challenging political exchange and deliberation, for example, via mistrust of the "political enemy" and unwillingness to discuss political topics with them. The present experiments address this problem and study what makes people approach, and not avoid, potential discussion partners in the context of polarized political topics in Germany. We hypothesized that intellectual humility, the recognition of one's intellectual limitations, would predict both less affective polarization and higher approach and lower avoidance tendencies toward contrary-minded others. Across four preregistered online-survey experiments (N = 1,668), we manipulated how intellectually humble a target person was perceived and measured participants' self-reported (topic-specific) intellectual humility. Results revealed that participants' intellectual humility was consistently negatively correlated with affective polarization. Additionally, intellectual humility of both the target person and the participants was beneficial, and sometimes even necessary, to make participants approach, and not avoid, the target person. Intellectual humility was more important than moral conviction, opinion, and opinion strength. Furthermore, the effects on approach and avoidance were mediated by more positive expectations regarding the debate, and the effects on future willingness for contact by higher target liking. Our findings suggest that intellectual humility is an important characteristic to enable political exchange as it leads to seeing political outgroups more positively and to a higher willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Implications for intergroup contact of political groups as well as ideas for future research are discussed.

A pdf of the research is here.

Here are some thoughts as to why intellectual humility is important to practicing psychologists:

Intellectual humility involves recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and being open to opposing perspectives.  This can help therapists avoid being overly dogmatic or dismissive of their clients' beliefs, even if they disagree. Maintaining an open and non-judgmental stance is crucial for building a strong therapeutic alliance.

People higher in intellectual humility tend to be more empathetic, forgiving, and valuing of others' wellbeing.  These qualities can facilitate better rapport and understanding between therapists and clients from different backgrounds or with contrasting worldviews.

Intellectual humility is associated with reduced polarization, extremism, and susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs.  Therapists exhibiting intellectual humility can model these qualities for clients struggling with rigid ideological stances that strain their relationships.

When political or controversial topics arise in therapy, intellectual humility can allow therapists to thoughtfully consider different perspectives without getting mired in unproductive debates or power struggles with clients.  An intellectually humble stance creates space for productive dialogue.

Overall, cultivating intellectual humility may help therapists navigate affective polarization and controversial topics more constructively in the therapeutic context by increasing openness, empathy, and willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints.  This can strengthen the therapeutic relationship and facilitate progress, even when working with clients holding contrasting beliefs.

Reddit Provides Insight into How People Think About Moral Dilemmas

Sigal Samuel

Vox: Future Perfect

Undated post

Here is a sample:

Uncovering philosophy’s blind spots 

Let’s get a bit more precise: It’s not as though all of philosophy has ignored relational context. But one branch — utilitarianism — is strongly inclined in this direction. Utilitarians believe we should seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people — and we have to consider everybody’s happiness equally. So we’re not supposed to be partial to our own friends or family members. 

This ethical approach took off in the 18th century. Today, it’s extremely influential in Western philosophy — and not just in the halls of academia. Famous philosophers like Peter Singer have popularized it in the public sphere, too. 

Increasingly, though, some are challenging it. 

“Moral philosophy has for so long been about trying to identify universal moral principles that apply to all people regardless of their identity,” Yudkin told me. “And it’s because of this effort that moral philosophers have really moved away from the relational perspective. But the more that I think about the data, the more clear to me it is that you’re losing something essential from the moral equation when you abstract away from relationships.” 

Moral psychologists like Princeton’s Molly Crockett and Yale’s Margaret Clark have likewise been investigating the idea that moral obligations are relationship-specific.

“Here’s a classic example,” Crockett told me a few years ago. “Consider a woman, Wendy, who could easily provide a meal to a young child but fails to do so. Has Wendy done anything wrong? It depends on who the child is. If she’s failing to provide a meal to her own child, then absolutely she’s done something wrong! But if Wendy is a restaurant owner and the child is not otherwise starving, then they don’t have a relationship that creates special obligations prompting her to feed the child.”

According to Crockett, being a moral agent has become trickier for us with the rise of globalization, which forces us to think about how our actions might affect people we’re never going to meet. “Being a good global citizen now butts up against our very powerful psychological tendencies to prioritize our families and friends,” Crockett told me.

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

Reddit Provides Insight into How People Think About Moral Dilemmas

• Philosophers Daniel Yudkin and colleagues analyzed millions of comments from Reddit's "Am I the Asshole?" forum to study how ordinary people reason about moral dilemmas in real life situations.
• They found the most common dilemmas involved "relational obligations" - what we owe to others based on our relationships with them, like family, friends, coworkers etc.
• The types of moral dilemmas people faced varied based on the specific relationship context (e.g. with a sibling vs. manager).

Challenging the Impartiality of Utilitarianism

• This challenges the utilitarian view in philosophy that we should impartially maximize happiness for everyone equally, ignoring special relationships.
• Some argue this impartial view overlooks the deep psychological importance of prioritizing close relations like family over strangers.
• While impartiality may be an ideal, critics say it is psychologically unrealistic to expect people to abandon loved ones to help larger numbers of strangers.
• The research highlights how modern moral philosophy, especially utilitarianism, may fail to account for the central role relationships and social contexts play in ordinary moral reasoning and obligations.

As others have said better than me, moral norms and principles provide a shared framework for evaluating right and wrong behavior. They define obligations and duties we have towards others, especially those close to us. By adhering to moral codes, individuals can build trust, reciprocity, and a sense of fairness in their relationships.

The expression of moral judgments, both positive and negative, helps regulate self-interest and enforce cooperative norms within groups. When people can call out immoral actions and praise ethical conduct, it incentivizes prosocial behavior and discourages free-riding. This promotes cooperation for mutual benefit.

OpenAI insiders are demanding a “right to warn” the public

Sigal Samuel

Vox.com

Originally posted 5 June 24

Here is an excerpt:

To be clear, the signatories are not saying they should be free to divulge intellectual property or trade secrets, but as long as they protect those, they want to be able to raise concerns about risks. To ensure whistleblowers are protected, they want the companies to set up an anonymous process by which employees can report their concerns “to the company’s board, to regulators, and to an appropriate independent organization with relevant expertise.” 

An OpenAI spokesperson told Vox that current and former employees already have forums to raise their thoughts through leadership office hours, Q&A sessions with the board, and an anonymous integrity hotline.

“Ordinary whistleblower protections [that exist under the law] are insufficient because they focus on illegal activity, whereas many of the risks we are concerned about are not yet regulated,” the signatories write in the proposal. They have retained a pro bono lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, who previously advised Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen and whom the New Yorker once described as “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era.”

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

AI development is booming, but with great power comes great responsibility, typed the Spiderman fan.  AI researchers at OpenAI are calling for a "right to warn" the public about potential risks. In clinical psychology, we have a "duty to warn" for violent patients. This raises important ethical questions. On one hand, transparency and open communication are crucial for responsible AI development.  On the other hand, companies need to protect their ideas.  The key seems to lie in striking a balance.  Researchers should have safe spaces to voice concerns without fearing punishment, and clear guidelines can help ensure responsible disclosure without compromising confidential information.

Ultimately, fostering a culture of open communication is essential to ensure AI benefits society without creating unforeseen risks.  AI developers need similar ethical guidelines to psychologists in this matter.

Becoming a culturally responsive and socially just clinical supervisor

Spowart, J. K. P., & Robertson, S. E. (2024).

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne.

Advance online publication. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000388

Abstract

Clinical supervisors must learn to attend to and address a breadth of cultural, diversity and social justice factors and dynamics when providing supervision. Developing these abilities does not occur automatically; rather, training in clinical supervision has a significant impact on supervisors’ development. Unfortunately, there is relatively limited research on how supervisors develop these same ways of being and working. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how counselling psychology doctoral students understand their experiences of becoming culturally responsive and socially just clinical supervisors. Findings from this study detail the developmental experiences of novice supervisors and highlight training needs, educational interventions, progression of competencies and experiences with counselling supervisees and supervisors-of-supervision. Implications for theories of supervisor development and approaches in graduate training programmes are discussed along side of calls to more robustly integrate culturally responsive and socially just training and approaches throughout the field of clinical supervision.

Impact Statement

Clinical supervisors are responsible for attending to and addressing issues of culture, diversity and advocacy so that they may better prepare new mental health practitioners to support populations from diverse backgrounds. Little is known about the training experiences and needs of clinical supervisors as they learn to carry out this important work. The present study addresses this gap in the literature by highlighting the experiences of supervisors-in-training and provides tangible education and training recommendations to help ensure more culturally responsive and socially just clinical supervision practices.

Here are two excerpts:

From the Introduction:

Clinical supervision is a distinct area of practice in psychology (Arthur & Collins, 2015). Historically, it was assumed that becoming a clinical supervisor was "a natural outgrowth of the acquisition of [counselling] experience" (Thériault & Gazzola, 2019, p. 155). Currently, it is recognised that becoming a clinical supervisor is a unique, complex and multifaceted developmental process in which distinct skills, knowledge, awareness and attitudes must be cultivated (Falender & Shafranske, 2017; Thériault & Gazzola, 2019). Adding to this, providing supervision alone does not guarantee supervisor development or the acquisition of clinical supervision competencies (Falender & Shafranske, 2004; C. E. Watkins, 2012). Rather, training in clinical supervision has been shown to have a significant impact on development as a supervisor (Christofferson et al., 2023; Gazzola & De Stefano, 2016; Milne et al., 2011). Individuals may obtain such training either during graduate school or through postgraduate professional development.

From the Discussion:

To begin, the importance of MCSJ (Multicultural Social Justice) factors and dynamics served as a context for the doctoral student SITs' (Supervisors In Training) experiences. As if it were a lens through which they understood their practice and development, their focus on MCSJ factors and dynamics was not something that could be divorced from their experiences. As they were transitioning into and taking on their new role, the SITS experienced some initial difficulties. At first, they felt they needed a road map. They did not have a clear understanding of how they could provide CRSJ supervision and wished they had received more initial guidance. Some of these initial difficulties abated as the doctoral student SITS were impacted by a number of supports to their development.

When Therapists Lose Their Licenses, Some Turn to the Unregulated Life Coaching Industry Instead

Jessica Miller

Salt Lake Tribune

Originally published 17 June 24

A frustrated woman recently called the Utah official in charge of professional licensing, upset that his office couldn’t take action against a life coach she had seen. Mark Steinagel recalls the woman telling him: “I really think that we should be regulating life coaching. Because this person did a lot of damage to me.”

Reports about life coaches — who sell the promise of helping people achieve their personal or professional goals — come into Utah’s Division of Professional Licensing about once a month. But much of the time, Steinagel or his staff have to explain that there’s nothing they can do.

If the woman had been complaining about any of the therapist professions overseen by DOPL, Steinagel’s office might have been able to investigate and potentially order discipline, including fines.

But life coaches aren’t therapists and are mostly unregulated across the United States. They aren’t required to be trained in ethical boundaries the way therapists are, and there’s no universally accepted certification for those who work in the industry.

The information is here.

Here are some thoughts on the ethics of this trend:

The trend of therapists who have lost their licenses transitioning to the unregulated life coaching industry raises significant ethical concerns and risks. This shift allows individuals who have been deemed unfit to practice therapy to continue working with vulnerable clients without oversight or accountability. The lack of regulation in life coaching means that these practitioners can potentially continue harmful behaviors, misrepresent their qualifications, and exploit clients without facing the same consequences they would in the regulated therapy field.

This situation poses substantial risks to clients (and the integrity of coaching as profession). Clients seeking help may not understand the difference between regulated therapy and unregulated life coaching, potentially exposing themselves to practitioners who have previously violated ethical standards. The presence of discredited therapists in the life coaching industry can erode public trust in mental health services and coaching alike, potentially deterring individuals from seeking necessary help. Moreover, clients have limited legal recourse if they are harmed by an unregulated life coach, leaving them vulnerable to financial and emotional distress.

To address these concerns, there is a pressing need for regulatory measures in the life coaching industry, particularly concerning practitioners with a history of ethical violations in related fields. Such regulations could help maintain the integrity of coaching, protect vulnerable clients, and ensure that those seeking help receive services from qualified and ethical practitioners. Without such measures, the potential for harm remains significant, undermining the valuable work done by ethical professionals in both therapy and life coaching.