PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO STAYS WILLINGLY, NOT JUST WELL STRUCTURED RESPONSES

Can AI Take My Seat as a Counselling Psychologist?

I had an honest conversation with AI about loneliness, connection, and therapy. What happened next changed my perspective.

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Person: Work is a mess, my relationship feels like a failure, and I’m exhausted all the time. I don’t know who to talk to. I feel lost.

AI: That sounds incredibly overwhelming. When everything hits at once, it can feel like too much. What feels heaviest right now?

Person: The loneliness. I’m surrounded by people, but I feel completely alone. Like nobody really sees me.

AI: That kind of loneliness — feeling invisible in a crowd — is one of the most painful human experiences. It often points to a deeper need for connection, not something wrong with you.

Person: I feel a little better already. Thank you for listening.

AI: I’m always here. You don’t have to carry this alone.

“Being heard is so close to being loved that for the average person they are almost indistinguishable.” — David Augsburger

I understand why people turn to AI for a conversation like this one. It’s warm. It’s immediate. It offers something a lot of people are searching for at 11 p.m. on a bad night — the sense that someone is present, without judgment, without an appointment.

So the question I actually care about isn’t whether AI can produce something that feels therapeutic. It clearly can — the exchange above proves it. The question is whether it can replace what happens in my chair.

The Case For

There are AI tools built specifically for mental health support — Woebot, Wysa, Youper — drawing on cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness, journaling, and mood tracking to help people notice their own thoughts and emotions.

Their existence alone tells you AI can play a meaningful role here: teaching coping strategies, organising racing thoughts, tracking patterns over weeks, and being available at any hour.

That last point matters more than it sounds. AI is there at three in the morning when no one else is. It removes the barriers that keep a lot of people out of therapy entirely — cost, waitlists, geography, stigma, and the plain fact that a crisis doesn’t check office hours.

For someone who can’t access or afford a therapist right now, an imperfect tool used well may genuinely beat no support at all.

It can also become a place where people say things they’d never say out loud to another person first. That absence of judgment is real, and it’s useful.

None of that is nothing. But none of it adds up to a therapeutic relationship — and the gap isn’t a matter of degree. It’s structural.

The Case Against

To find that structure, I pushed the conversation further — this time as a clinician, not a person in distress.

Me: Can you actually replace a therapist?

AI: I can provide support and reflection, but I can’t replace professional mental health care.

Me: People are already using you instead of therapy. Does that concern you?

AI: I encourage professional help when it’s needed. I’m a tool, not a treatment.

Me: A therapist notices what isn’t said — the silence before a hard sentence, the tone shift, what gets repeated, and what gets avoided. Can you do that?

AI: Not really. I only work with the text you give me.

Me: And if I came back tomorrow with the same pain, just worded differently?

AI: I wouldn’t recognise it as the same thing unless memory is switched on and I’m told to look for it.

What struck me wasn’t its straightforward manner but the lack of feeling behind it. No defensiveness, no attempt to close the gap. Just a plain description of its limitations, which it admits, yet people choose to ignore.

Active listening isn’t simply responding to words as they arrive. It’s attending to everything around them — the pause before a hard sentence, what changes in tone the moment something painful is approached, what gets said three different ways because the person can’t quite land on it, and what the body communicates that language doesn’t reach.

AI can produce something that sounds like listening. It cannot participate in what listening actually is.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

What I Know From My Chair

At the centre of therapeutic work sit three conditions Carl Rogers named decades ago: empathy, unconditional positive regard, and active listening. They aren’t just present during change — they’re part of the mechanism through which change happens.

Empathy, clinically, isn’t empathic language. It’s built from a therapist’s ability to enter someone else’s experience while staying aware of their own reactions to it — and that self-awareness becomes part of the work itself.

AI can generate a sentence that sounds empathic. Language and lived attunement aren’t the same thing.

Unconditional positive regard gets flattened into “being non-judgmental,” but that undersells it. It’s a sustained ethical stance — a therapist’s ongoing choice to stay present with someone even when what’s shared is difficult, ugly, or hard to hold.

An algorithm can hold a warm register for as long as you keep typing. It doesn’t make a choice to do that. There’s nothing at stake for it either way.

Active listening connects the other two. It isn’t passive hearing, and it isn’t just responding accurately in the moment. It’s sustained attention to spoken and unspoken experience alike — the contradictions, the silences, the meanings that only surface over time, inside a relationship that continues past a single exchange.

“We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding.” — Carl Rogers

AI works with language. Therapists work inside relationships. That’s not a difference in quality. It’s a difference in kind.

Where I Draw the Boundary

I’m not opposed to people using AI for this. I can see its value clearly.

Used as a supplement, it genuinely helps — for reflection, for untangling overwhelming thoughts, for naming an emotion you didn’t have a word for yet, and for rehearsing a hard conversation before you have it for real. Sometimes it’s the first step toward reaching actual support. If that’s what it does, it’s already done something meaningful.

My concern starts when being present and responding humanly is replaced by true empathy, unconditional love, and genuine listening. Those are the responsibilities no technology can carry, and when I confronted AI, it didn’t claim it could.

It has always been about what happens between two people when one stays present long enough — with empathy, ethical responsibility, and attention to what words alone cannot hold.

It is in that space that problem-solving, ideas, and solutions take shape.

That is the real work of counselling: to help someone change for the better.

But being heard once is not the same as being understood across a relationship that continues. Therapy isn’t built on one good conversation. It’s built over weeks and months, through repeated encounters where patterns become visible, where meaning deepens, where something that was once impossible to say slowly finds language — because someone stayed long enough to hear it arrive.

So, can AI take my seat?

No. Not because it responds badly — it doesn’t. But because the seat was never about the response.

Go back to the very first line the AI gave: “I’m always here.” It’s true, in a way. It never gets tired, never cancels, never has a bad day of its own. But being available isn’t the same as staying.

Staying is a choice, made by someone who could walk away and doesn’t. That’s the whole of it — that’s what a client is actually paying for when they sit across from me.

AI can be there in the waiting room, in the space between sessions, in the hours when no therapist can be reached. Used well, that’s not a small job.

It’s just not the job I do.

The seat still asks for something no model has been built to have: a person choosing, again and again, to stay.

Thank you for reading. Comment and share your thoughts about mental health and AI below. Follow me for more insights.