Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mentalization, which is integral to human cognitive processes, pertains to the interpretation of one's own and others' mental states, including emotions, beliefs, and intentions. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the prominence of large language models in mental health applications, questions persist about their aptitude in emotional comprehension. The prior iteration of the large language model from OpenAI, ChatGPT-3.5, demonstrated an advanced capacity to interpret emotions from textual data, surpassing human benchmarks. Given the introduction of ChatGPT-4, with its enhanced visual processing capabilities, and considering Google Bard's existing visual functionalities, a rigorous assessment of their proficiency in visual mentalizing is warranted. The aim of the research was to critically evaluate the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard with regard to their competence in discerning visual mentalizing indicators as contrasted with their textual-based mentalizing abilities. The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test developed by Baron-Cohen and colleagues was used to assess the models' proficiency in interpreting visual emotional indicators. Simultaneously, the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale was used to evaluate the large language models' aptitude in textual mentalizing. Collating data from both tests provided a holistic view of the mentalizing capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Bard. ChatGPT-4, displaying a pronounced ability in emotion recognition, secured scores of 26 and 27 in 2 distinct evaluations, significantly deviating from a random response paradigm (P<.001). These scores align with established benchmarks from the broader human demographic. Notably, ChatGPT-4 exhibited consistent responses, with no discernible biases pertaining to the sex of the model or the nature of the emotion. In contrast, Google Bard's performance aligned with random response patterns, securing scores of 10 and 12 and rendering further detailed analysis redundant. In the domain of textual analysis, both ChatGPT and Bard surpassed established benchmarks from the general population, with their performances being remarkably congruent. ChatGPT-4 proved its efficacy in the domain of visual mentalizing, aligning closely with human performance standards. Although both models displayed commendable acumen in textual emotion interpretation, Bard's capabilities in visual emotion interpretation necessitate further scrutiny and potential refinement. This study stresses the criticality of ethical AI development for emotional recognition, highlighting the need for inclusive data, collaboration with patients and mental health experts, and stringent governmental oversight to ensure transparency and protect patient privacy.

Large language models (LLMs) hold potential for mental health applications. However, their opaque alignment processes may embed biases that shape problematic perspectives. Evaluating the values embedded within LLMs that guide their decision-making have ethical importance. Schwartz's theory of basic values (STBV) provides a framework for quantifying cultural value orientations and has shown utility for examining values in mental health contexts, including cultural, diagnostic, and therapist-client dynamics. This study aimed to (1) evaluate whether the STBV can measure value-like constructs within leading LLMs and (2) determine whether LLMs exhibit distinct value-like patterns from humans and each other. In total, 4 LLMs (Bard, Claude 2, Generative Pretrained Transformer [GPT]-3.5, GPT-4) were anthropomorphized and instructed to complete the Portrait Values Questionnaire-Revised (PVQ-RR) to assess value-like constructs. Their responses over 10 trials were analyzed for reliability and validity. To benchmark the LLMs' value profiles, their results were compared to published data from a diverse sample of 53,472 individuals across 49 nations who had completed the PVQ-RR. This allowed us to assess whether the LLMs diverged from established human value patterns across cultural groups. Value profiles were also compared between models via statistical tests. The PVQ-RR showed good reliability and validity for quantifying value-like infrastructure within the LLMs. However, substantial divergence emerged between the LLMs' value profiles and population data. The models lacked consensus and exhibited distinct motivational biases, reflecting opaque alignment processes. For example, all models prioritized universalism and self-direction, while de-emphasizing achievement, power, and security relative to humans. Successful discriminant analysis differentiated the 4 LLMs' distinct value profiles. Further examination found the biased value profiles strongly predicted the LLMs' responses when presented with mental health dilemmas requiring choosing between opposing values. This provided further validation for the models embedding distinct motivational value-like constructs that shape their decision-making. This study leveraged the STBV to map the motivational value-like infrastructure underpinning leading LLMs. Although the study demonstrated the STBV can effectively characterize value-like infrastructure within LLMs, substantial divergence from human values raises ethical concerns about aligning these models with mental health applications. The biases toward certain cultural value sets pose risks if integrated without proper safeguards. For example, prioritizing universalism could promote unconditional acceptance even when clinically unwise. Furthermore, the differences between the LLMs underscore the need to standardize alignment processes to capture true cultural diversity. Thus, any responsible integration of LLMs into mental health care must account for their embedded biases and motivation mismatches to ensure equitable delivery across diverse populations. Achieving this will require transparency and refinement of alignment techniques to instill comprehensive human values.

Recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) language models have elevated the vision of using conversational AI support for mental health, with a growing body of literature indicating varying degrees of efficacy. In this paper, we ask when, in therapy, it will be easier to replace humans and, conversely, in what instances, human connection will still be more valued. We suggest that empathy lies at the heart of the answer to this question. First, we define different aspects of empathy and outline the potential empathic capabilities of humans versus AI. Next, we consider what determines when these aspects are needed most in therapy, both from the perspective of therapeutic methodology and from the perspective of patient objectives. Ultimately, our goal is to prompt further investigation and dialogue, urging both practitioners and scholars engaged in AI-mediated therapy to keep these questions and considerations in mind when investigating AI implementation in mental health.