While I understand that some will disagree, it’s not like there’s an objective standard against which we are measuring both the AI and the human counselors to begin with.

Without a standard it’s just anecdotes and with a standard there’s clarity on when the increased costs no longer justify the lower access and potentially higher quality. I suspect that if we instituted an objective standard we would find that AI is already capable of meeting or exceeding some proportion of people currently employed in the role today.

This cannot possibly be the case when there was a clear A/B test scenario here. AI was dropped in, nothing else changed about the website, suddenly cases of relapse and worsening conditions went up.

I think you're confusing my statement that "it could be done well" with "your team did it well"

And I’m very familiar with AMA-certified (TM) “doctors” who have done the same.

In this case there’s a fairly clear A/B test where if we dropped in an AI instead of hired counselors, the number of negative outcomes went up.