Lauran Ware's experiment using ChatGPT as a therapist has divided Independent readers, prompting a debate about the role of AI in mental health support. Many agreed with the article's central argument that AI cannot replicate human connection, while others highlighted its practical strengths.
Several readers argued that, without emotions or lived experience, chatbots can offer practical advice but will always fall short of genuine empathy or relational depth. For them, therapy is as much about being understood as it is about problem-solving. One commenter noted that properly trained therapists learn to identify their 'own stuff', something AI lacks.
Others, however, pointed to AI's advantages. Some noted that chatbots can draw on vast bodies of psychological knowledge, sometimes exceeding what individual therapists have read, and can provide useful insights or summaries on demand. A few described using AI as a 'sounding board', valuing its objectivity, privacy and ability to clarify complex thoughts without judgement.
Accessibility emerged as a key theme. Readers suggested AI could offer support to those unable to afford therapy or lacking strong personal networks, with potential benefits in preventing crises. One reader remarked that if self-harm or suicide can be prevented, AI chatbots may have a positive place in the world.
Still, concerns remained. Commenters questioned AI's ability to ask the right questions, agreeing with Ware that its responses are only ever as good as the prompts it receives. One reader observed that AI lacks an amygdala, so it cannot feel, though it might offer novel solutions to thorny problems. Whether AI can ever develop empathy remains uncertain, but as another reader noted, it is early days.
