AI Psychologist Chatbot

{{ In Southern California, tech entrepreneur Alex Furmansky created a chatbot version of Belgian celebrity psychotherapist Esther Perel by scraping her podcasts off the internet. He used the bot to counsel himself through a recent heartbreak, documenting his journey in a blog post that a friend eventually forwarded to Perel herself. }}

If I can treat myself with a chatbot modeled off of a top-shelf celebrity psychotherapist, we may be well on the way to solving the problem of affordable mental health care.



Not only that, when they come for your AI therapist, to put it out of business, its AI lawyer will be able to defend it. Therapists and lawyers and such are right at the forefront of those to be replaced completely by AI. Way too expensive for most people and with expertise that’s easy to duplicate.

No robots needed because it’s just minor intellectual effort.

Doctors are also relatively easy to replace. Nurses much harder.



This is for poor people.

I do not know how the poor people will feel about that.

Caveat Emptor

A New Kind of AI Copy Can Fully Replicate Famous People

I long for the day when AI can faithfully replicate Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington, or Alexander Hamilton or other of the Founding Fathers, and then ask them “in light of technological developments” (I’m thinking improvements in gun accuracy, speed, and capacity) what would you do today? The idea, obviously, would be to counter the ridiculous arguments that while everything else has changed, the law must be frozen to what a few privileged intellectuals in a stratified white society thought about musket loaders in a time of geometrically enhanced firepower as we have today.

There are other questions that might be relevant in a similar vein, some of which I think would flow towards my favored positions and others which would not (I’m thinking here specifically of FDR’s “big government” and the many Executive Branch agencies charged with overseeing so many aspects of modern life.)

Anyway, I would think it interesting.


The more interesting thought is that, as the amendment relates the “right to bear arms” to the need for a “well regulated militia”, how did the second become an absolute, unregulated, “right”, without arms carriers being members of the militia, which, today, would be the Guard and Reserve? Oh, yeah, those “unelected judges legislating from the bench”.

Or, in the current discussions about who is an “officer of the United States”: it has occurred to me that the 14th, and the Constitution itself, may be written in plain language, not modern legalese “terms of art”. Anyone else tried to read the stuff that comes out of Congress these days? Their output is so loopy, full of “notwithstanding”, and sentences or phrases added to, or deleted from, other laws, that it is very difficult for the layman to have any idea what they are blathering about. I heard a “lawmaker” touting his bill to change the rules of the 401k. What he said sounded good, so I tried to read the bill. After tracing back all the changes that legislation made to previous laws, a sentence added here, and phrase deleted there, if finally became evident that the purpose was to remove the limit on how much richer the “JC’s” 401k could be than the Prole’s 401k. If his legislation had passed, the only change would have been so that a company could offer the Proles a 5% match, while offering the “JC” a 5000% match, as a for-instance. A plain language bill would have said “this legislation removes the limits on how much richer the “JCs” 401k can be than that offered to employees”, but no. It took hours of reading to figure out what it actually did.

Jefferson, in drafting the Declaration, said that his intent was to write in plain language, not the loopy blather of today’s lawyers and pols.

As he sat at his desk in a Philadelphia boarding house, Jefferson drafted a “common sense” treatise in “terms so plain and firm, as to command [the] assent” of mankind.

(Jefferson and the Declaration | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello)


Bear Arms…the bear part was meant only for the militia. There was no such thing as an individual right to bear arms. I think it was Justice Scalia or Kennedy who came up with the meaning of an individual right.

Thanks Google…yep…this is fiction writing by the bench.

Heller, Justice Scalia interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (i.e., a right that could be “exercised individually” for self-defense purposes ), rather than a collective right (i.e., a right that could be “exercised only through participation in some corporate body,” such …