Of course, but an AI can't explain how it got to what it's telling you. A human can, and you don't have to accept it wholesale; it's possible to judge it on its merits and argument. But no-one really understand how and why ChatGPT says what it does, so you can't trust anything it says unless you already know the answer.

In this discussion, a human has studied psychology and has diplomas or certifications to prove it, an ethics framework it must follow, and responsibility for its mistakes. ChatGPT has none of that, it just regurgitates something it got from the Internet's wisdom or something it invented altogether.

I'm not saying humans are never wrong, but at least their reasoning isn't a black box unlike ChatGPT and other LLMs.

Most science in the social science is essentially black box studies. We see what goes.in and observe what comes out without any formal understanding of what goes on in the box itself.

Additionally there's something called the replication crisis in the social sciences (psychology included) which is basically to the effect of a major discovery that most of these "black box" studies can not be reproduced. When someone runs the same experiment the results are all different.

It goes to show that either many of the studies were fraudulent, our statistical methodologies are flawed, both.

Given that chatGPT therapeutic data is ALSO derived from the same training data I would say it's ok to trust chatGPT as much as you would trust psychologists. Both have a lot of bullshit with nuggets of truth.