Source assessmentSupporting
Chatbots, Robots, and the Ethics of Automating Psychotherapy
Ethics of chatbot psychotherapyAcademic
Assessment outcome
total 4/6 (actionability 1 + authority 1 + currency 2)
Total4/6
Actionability1/2
Authority1/2
Currency2/2
Authorship & scope
Attribution (G4 evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
Issuer authority (evidence)
No evidence recorded for this source.
This source has not been read into a full record yet; only the screening assessment is available.
Eligibility gates
G1 · Retrievablepass
Passed in screening.
G2 · AI nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G3 · Governance nexuspass
Passed in screening.
G4 · Attributablepass
Passed in screening.
G5 · In forcepass
Passed in screening.
Scored criteria
Actionability
1/2No rationale recorded.
The reasonable legal or professional requirement of a watermark for such technologies would be an effective means of preventing this violation of principle through informed consent and an indication of robotic identity in all interactions
Authority
1/2No rationale recorded.
Athens Journal of Philosophy - Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2024 – Pages 111-122 https://doi.org/10.30958/ajphil.3-3-1 doi=10.30958/ajphil.3-3-1 Chatbots, Robots, and the Ethics of Automating Psychotherapy By Eric B. Litwack∗
Currency
2/2No rationale recorded.
Classification
Coverage topicEthics of chatbot psychotherapy
PerspectiveAcademic
Lifecycle stage7 Use & impact
Layermodel
GranularityNot recorded