[_vertigo]

So your take is that if they are therapists, it’s a conflict of interest, and if they aren’t therapists, they’re not qualified to make the assessment?

[giingyui]

That is correct. I don’t think this study can be made in a reliable way.

[colinmorelli]

This is an interesting take. By this perspective, it's essentially impossible to ever gauge the efficacy of AI in doing anything, because the people who will know how to measure the quality of that thing are also the people who will be displaced by showing the AI can do that thing. In fact, you could probably argue that every study ever is worthless, because studies are generally performed by people who know the subject matter and it's basically impossible to be unbiased on a topic if you're also highly knowledgable about said topic.

In reality, what matters is the methodology of the study. If the study's methodology is sound, and its results can be reproduced by others, then it is generally considered to be a good study. That's the whole reason we publish methodologies and results: so others can critique and verify. If you think this study is bad, explain why. The whole document is there for you to review.

[_vertigo]

Well, that’s helpful to know so that other people can know to ignore what you write on this