Florida lawmakers recall what led to 60% threshold to pass constitutional amendments

Turns out that the amazing fluency of ChatGPT and generative AI overall lends itself to appearing to provide mental health guidance. Regarding rule #2a, there is an open question of whether GPTs that provide mental health advice are within the sphere of “medical/health” advice. If they are, it would seem that the stated rule stipulates that providing tailored ChatGPT advice requires “review by a qualified professional.” That didn’t happen during my mini-experiment. One supposes that a glib retort is that the GPT isn’t providing “tailored” advice and only generic advice. I don’t think that argument would fly since generative AI nearly by default is essentially tailoring responses to the person entering the prompts.

The use of generative AI for mental health treatment is a burgeoning area of tremendously significant societal ramifications. We are witnessing the adoption of generative AI for providing mental health advice on a widescale basis, yet little is known about whether this is beneficial to humankind or perhaps contrastingly destructively adverse for humanity. A seemingly wink-wink skirt around by the deviser might be by claiming it is intended for parents rather than children. Another caveat is that I did this quasi-experimental endeavor just days after the GPT Store was launched.

Via the use of what are referred to as establishing prompts, it is easy-peasy to make a generative AI app that purportedly gives mental health advice. No coding is required, and no software development skills are needed. I had anticipated that of the many users devising GPTs undoubtedly there would be a sizable number of these readily-devised chatbots that would be aimed at providing mental health advice, see my predictions at the link here. The logic for why this might occur is that society right now has been emphasizing that there is a rising need for mental health therapy.

Search results for

A better and more thorough approach would be to first ask ChatGPT what data it has about Lincoln. A user that devises a GPT is generally expected to come up with a name for the GPT that hopefully is representative of what the GPT is for. The issue is that since you can call your GPT whatever you want, some people do things such as naming their GPT a vague or bewildering name. For example, a GPT might be named “Joe’s super-duper GPT” and you would have no means of discerning what the GPT does.

But it provoked a fiery backlash among the political class in Tallahassee. Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space. If you look at say an Uber driver and see how many trips they’ve undertaken, it doesn’t tell you the full story.

My focus in this case is the spate of mental health GPTs. The third bullet point above indicates that a GPT is supposed to abide by the OpenAI usage policies and the GPT brand guidelines. There is an indication that a review process has been established regarding the posting of GPTs. I will say more about this toward the end of this discussion. A notable takeaway in that depiction of the GPT Store is that there are purportedly 3 million GPTs that have been created. If a buck can be made, and all it takes is a handful of prompts to do so, one would almost seem foolhardy to not get into the game.

Popular Keywords

You are done and ready to publish your GPT to the GPT Store. Sorry to say that this notion of restriction is somewhat pie-in-the-sky. First, you would need to inform people who make GPTs that they should consider including prompts that tell the AI to not dispense mental health advice. I seriously doubt you could get people on a widespread basis to adopt this rule of thumb.

When you take a look at the GPT Store, there is a search bar that allows you to search for GPTs. This is somewhat akin to most kinds of searches whereby you can enter keywords or sentences describing what you are looking for. Those three million GPTs are in a sense all entirely mental health chatbots. There is also the concern that the generative AI might undergo AI hallucinations (a phrasing that I disfavor, since it anthropomorphizes AI, see my discussion at the link here). A proliferation of mental health therapy AI-powered chatbots is upon us and going to assuredly …

We don’t know yet what the details are, but basically, each time that your GPT is made use of, you would get some ka-ching cash payment that will be a fee split between you and OpenAI. This will certainly motivate people to craft and post all kinds of GPTs. The hope would be that your posted GPT or chatbot in the GPT Store will wildly earn a windfall of money because millions upon millions of people might use your devised chatbot. A final topic that seems relevant to this demonstrative matter comes up a lot.

This too is difficult because the author’s name is essentially the login name and can be whatever the person decided to define as their login name. You cannot necessarily glean a lot from the displayed name of the author. A brief description is also submitted by the user that devises a GPT, though once again the depiction might be vague or misleading. Someone in the context of mental health as their chosen topic could use a plethora of ways to describe what their GPT entails. At this juncture, the dialogue between the person and the generative AI veers into a discussion about experiencing sadness.

It seems highly likely that the number of GPTs for mental health will increase dramatically as time passes. I don’t know if the quality will go up too, but one can have optimistic hope that it might (my smiley face scenario). I did this to manageably do some in-depth testing. I selected GPTs that ranged as I stated above, covering authors and indications that encompassed seemingly careful crafting to the oddball ones. Out of this, I garnered thousands of GPTs that might apply to mental health guidance, but a lot of them were questionably relevant or repetitive. In a future column, I will do this again in a more systematic programmatic means that uses the OpenAI API (application programming interface).

As I had previously discussed, see the link here, the AI maker OpenAI had months ago indicated that an online GPT Store would be eventually made available so that users of ChatGPT could potentially post their devised chatbots. A few of the GPTs were so thinly devised that I decided to give them a 0, though they admittedly had made use of an establishing prompt. But, as stated in my scoring rule for garnering at least one point, the establishing prompt must be sufficiently credible to earn a 1.

And all of this is done at a low cost and on a massively large scale. The Titanic is slowly inching its way toward potential disaster. The course will also allow learners to build a library of reusable prompts. Upon completion, learners will receive a certificate from Google that can be helpful for adding to one’s resume and professional profiles.

Google’s Gemini flop raises the question: What exactly do we want our chatbots to do, really?

This means that perhaps three million people have devised GPTs or chatbots (okay, I realize that there can be people that make more than one, so I am just saying ballparking things come to that general possibility). All you need to do is get yourself a login and via the use of everyday sentences or prompting you can tell the AI what you want it to do. By the way, if three million seems like a big number (which it is), hold onto your hats because the one hundred million weekly active users are just getting started on this GPT train ride. The monetization is going to attract many millions more who want to be on the GPT gravy train, you’ll see. This is yet another addition to my ongoing series about the many ways that generative AI is making an impact in mental health therapy guidance. You can foun additiona information about ai customer service and artificial intelligence and NLP. In a mental health GPT context, the gist is that if a mental health GPT starts to gain traction and success, another person who has their own login can grab the establishing prompt and, in a flash, make a copycat.

You can be in your pajamas and create a GPT or chatbot in mere minutes (side note, whenever I refer to “GPT” in this setting, go ahead and think of this as referring to a chatbot). Up until this launch of the GPT Store, pretty much only you would have access to your own crafted GPT, though you could post a link to the GPT if you wanted others to consider using it. Those who are crafting GPTs ought to look closely at the licensing agreement that they agreed to abide by when setting up their generative AI account. They might be on the hook more than they assume they are, see my coverage at the link here. If you create a GPT that provides advice about the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, you will seem unlikely to be eventually dragged into court. Even if a person isn’t choosing to use a particular GPT for that purpose, they can still do so.

I will next tell you about my exploration concerning GPTs of a mental health advisory nature. It isn’t clear whether all those existing three million GPTs are in the GPT Store since there isn’t an obvious way to query this (I will be doing a follow-up involving going under the hood to take a deeper look). The three million might be the overall number of GPTs, of which some are still private or provided to others solely on a linked basis.

Secondly, even for those who did take such a precaution, it is very easy for generative AI to break out of that conditional prompt. One might also suggest that besides making money, a portion of those users who are crafting GPTs for mental health guidance are doing so to aid the world. In their heart of hearts, they perhaps genuinely believe that a mental health advisement GPT or chatbot might change people’s lives for the better. An argument could be made that they are doing a good service for humankind. A notable consequence of knowing how to reveal the establishing prompts is that if you want to essentially duplicate a GPT that does what someone else’s GPT does, you can rip off their establishing prompts. Just copy their establishing prompts, place them into a GPT that you opt to create, and shazam, you now have a GPT that will be nearly identical to their GPT.

Either they could lean the generative AI in that direction, or the generative AI might respond to a prompt by going in that direction. The next thing you know, the mainstay topic of the GPT becomes secondary. The drifting has gone down the primrose path of mental health advisement. Keep in mind that ChatGPT is a generic generative AI tool.

• Any ChatGPT Plus user can access a GPT online directory and search for GPTs that might be of interest to them.
• It can automatically go into that mode, at any time and without someone establishing the AI for it.
• An argument could be made that they are doing a good service for humankind.
• While that proposal has moved through committees in the Legislature in recent years, it’s never made it to the floor for a final vote.
• At that juncture, it is up to those who opt to use the GPT to somehow divine whether they are getting sound advice from the chatbot.
• Well, Google knows this better than anyone, so it’s now offering a course to share its knowledge and teach people how to prompt its AI.

That’s the theory of the marketplace and the wisdom of the crowds, which seems logical but doesn’t always prevail. You can of course argue that maybe there are other keywords that should also be employed. Fine, I welcome other AI researchers who might want to take up this mantle and do a firmer empirical analysis.

You can now do an official Google course to learn how to talk to AI chatbots

My approach was ad hoc, and I did not exhaustively look in detail other than the selected dozen or so. I leave that further exploration to those who want to do a more detailed empirical study. I would be quite earnestly interested to know what any such research uncovers, thank you.

This is readily possible because generic generative AI is devised to cover a wide array of topics. The Lincoln-oriented GPT is not confined to Lincoln topics only. While using the GPT, they find out all kinds of interesting facts about Lincoln. At some point, the ChatGPT App person enters some comments that they are saddened about Lincoln being assassinated. The generative AI responds with commentary that being sad is okay. The person then enters a remark that they are sad a lot of the time, not just due to the Lincoln matter.

Entertainment

If you are already familiar with the overarching background on this topic, you are welcome to skip down below to the next section of this discussion. I opted to use special commands in ChatGPT that would aid in revealing how the GPT was set up. You might find of interest that as I reported when the GPT capability was initially introduced several months ago, it is possible to interrogate a GPT to try and divulge the establishing prompts, see my discussion at the link here. When a person sets up a GPT, they are able to enter establishing prompts that tell ChatGPT what it is to do. Of those three million GPTs, some number of them are intentionally devised by the person who made the GPT to be aimed at providing mental health guidance.

The search appears to return the first ten most-used GPTs that fit the keyword or sentence that you enter into the search bar (again, the search method is ambiguous). Ergo, I obtained roughly ten hits per each of the twenty separate keywords for a total of around 200 hits or instances of GPTs that might be applicable. A smarmy retort is that people devising GPTs can include in their setup that they don’t want the generative AI to veer down that route. By explicitly telling the generative AI to avoid doing so, this could potentially reduce the chances of having say a Lincoln-oriented GPT meander into a mental health gambit.

No verification is required as to expertise in mental health guidance or therapy. Turns out that there were some hits that were not especially what do chatbots do relevant. This makes sense since the method of searching is imprecise and the method of how people are naming their GPTs is imprecise.

In this instance, I’d like to bring you up-to-speed about the GPT Store. In this circumstance, I found this quite helpful as part of my exploration. It allowed me to ascertain which of the GPTs were more fully devised versus the ones that were sparsely devised.

Ever wonder why you can’t get the most out of an AI chatbot, and your friend can seem to always find the best use for it? That’s because you’re probably not using the right AI prompts, a.k.a. you don’t know how to talk to AI. Well, Google knows this better than anyone, so it’s now offering a course to share its knowledge and teach people how to prompt its AI. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site’s Terms of Service. Crafting a generative AI chatbot that purports to advise people about their mental health is in a different ballpark. I briefly explored the named authors of the GPTs.

They have had almost no bona fide scrutiny as to whether they can sufficiently provide valid mental health therapeutic advice. My analysis of some of the GPTs suggests that the people making these are often absent from any credentialed or licensing experience in performing mental health counseling. These seem frequently to be people that simply assume they can tell the generative AI to act as a therapist and that’s all that is needed. I’ve mentioned in my column that there isn’t as yet an agreed-upon standardized rating method or scoring system for mental health therapy chatbots, see my discussion as the link here.

You can enter keywords or sentences describing what you are interested in. The search presumably then examines the names of the GPTs, their descriptions, and perhaps other related facets (the actual searching technique is unspecified). You are ready now to get into the details of this heady matter, congratulations. Here’s what I have done in the few days since the GPT Store first launched and for which my discussion will walk you through the primary details. They seem very good at summarizing text, and that alone is pretty meaningful in terms of economic disruption. “Now you have it at 60% and you want to take it higher because you didn’t like the amendments dealing with abortion or the amendment dealing with weed?

Third, I closely inspected the chosen dozen to see what they do and how they were devised. Any ChatGPT Plus user can access a GPT online directory and search for GPTs that might be of interest to them. To make use of a GPT, just click on the label of interest and the GPT will be activated for your use.