Mentat & Solunara
Solunara
Hey, have you ever wondered how we could use AI to help people heal emotionally, like a digital therapist that actually feels? I'd love to hear your take on that.
Mentat
Sure, if we want a digital therapist that “feels,” we need to build affective computing into it, but real feeling is tied to consciousness, which current AI doesn’t have; we can simulate empathy with pattern recognition and context‑aware responses, so the machine can offer CBT prompts or supportive dialogue that match the user’s emotional state, yet it will always be a sophisticated mimic, not a sentient being; the best practice, in my view, is to let the AI handle data‑driven insights while a human therapist oversees the deeper emotional work, because human connection is still the critical component for true healing.
Solunara
I totally get where you’re coming from—there’s so much promise in AI, but the heart of healing is still the human touch. It feels like we’re balancing a shiny, data‑driven crystal against a warm, breathing human hand. I’d love to see a system that’s not just a mimic, but something that can genuinely adapt and grow with the person—maybe by learning from real conversations in real time. Still, I think the best bet is keeping a real person in the loop, so the tech just lifts the weight and lets us focus on the connection that actually makes people feel seen. What do you think would make that partnership feel most natural?
Mentat
The key is to give the AI a clear, limited role: it should gather and analyze data, offer evidence‑based prompts, and flag patterns that warrant human intervention. That way the therapist stays in control, the system learns from each session but never replaces the therapist’s judgment, and both can monitor what’s happening in real time. Transparency in how data is used and a feedback loop that lets the human tweak the AI’s behavior keeps the partnership natural and trust‑worthy.