I believe psychology, biology and neuroscience along with nutrition make up the manual of life. I can see the tension between spending ages learning and getting accustomed to techniques and methods that are antiquated or ineffective by the time you get to use them. That is a real gap I have seen in many disciplines especially software engineering where technology moves so you can blink and miss out. But chasing the latest trend or hype is a guaranteed recipe for burnout. The fundamentals don't change, problem solving or analytical skills can be applied to any programming language or system. Probably the same happens for psychology people’s problems don't change, being able to relate, stay with uncertainty or process difficult emotions.
I can definitely relate with the catch up therapy and how it erodes trust, continuity and ultimately resolution.
Leaving a sinking sensation of loss or failure, failure to explain, failure to be understood.
initially chalked it up as a system or environmental limitation but it can also render therapy largely ineffective when you have to spend half a session catching up.
That is where an AI system wins. Even with perfect recall though a lot of things will get filtered out via context compression or ranking.
The clear win with a human therapist that can never be replaced or replicated unless an AI system has lived experiences. That connection that is born by sitting in silence, as a patient seeing the therapist react to something heavy you just said, someone that can feel your pain because they can imagine themselves in that situation.
On the other hand AI systems are available 24/7 on your phone. They have access to the world wide web and all the articles ever written. It can explain in amazing detail and help work through issues with surprising accuracy. It can become a learning tool or a void you can scream into with no consequences, good or bad.
Using AI systems or traditional software for automating admin is something that should be happening already.
I would gladly contribute to Rosie's and Marika's mission to use AI as an enabler and accelerator in order to provide better care to their patients by offering my software engineering skills coupled with my passion for psychology and active engagement in the AI scene.
Very interesting piece. One thing I wondered as I imagined the AI in the therapy session, was this: will it be able to judge and inform the clinician’s approach? It’s collecting data on both patient *and* practitioner. Add in an overseeing piece of AI, one (or several) which collect data across practices and you may have an extra form of useful information - perhaps. If curiosity prevails, and not fear, that could be another use? (I am in no way connected to either the AI or psychology professions, simply an interested individual.)
This is a thoughtful interview, and the questions raised about AI in mental health are important ones. A few observations on the framing are worth noting.
Rosie is described as “Clinical Lead” and at “the forefront of AI in mental health,” while the interview itself indicates she completed the 4+2 pathway, a route AHPRA phased out in 2022, and identifies as an early career psychologist. The 4+2 is four years of undergraduate study and two years of supervised practice, so even allowing for a longer supervised period, the description of training as “the better part of a decade” reads as generous.
Postgraduate clinical training places significant emphasis on calibrated, evidence-supported claims and on recognising the limits of one’s own expertise. Comparisons to established medical technology, and clinical efficacy claims for tools without published validation, are areas where that discipline matters.
There is also a reasonable question about how AHPRA’s advertising guidelines apply to a piece that reads editorially but functions promotionally for a commercial platform.
None of this is a comment on Rosie personally. It is a comment on the standards the profession expects, and on the responsibility of more senior voices, including regulators, to engage with this space more visibly than they currently are.
You’re right to highlight the importance of clarity around training, evidence, and the standards expected in clinical practice. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be part of the conversation as AI starts to enter this space.
The intention of my interview questions were to present a real-world perspective from someone working at the intersection of clinical practice and emerging technology, and I think Rosie offers a number of thoughtful and valuable insights on how this is beginning to play out in practice.
I also take your point about how this sits in relation to professional and regulatory standards. That’s an area that is still evolving, and one that clearly needs more visible engagement from governing bodies.
Appreciate you taking the time to share this. It adds an important layer to the discussion.
Just to clarify: my reference to AHPRA was about guidelines that already exist, not standards still evolving. The advertising provisions under Section 133, the Psychology Board’s advertising guidelines, and the shared Code of Conduct all currently apply to how registered psychologists are represented in promotional and editorial contexts. The gap is in enforcement and visibility, not in the standards themselves.
You are correct, it is a 4 year pathway that I commenced. I started university in 2017, and studied for four years. I then took up the + 2 component in 2021 in replacement of my masters for reasons stated above. Unfortunately, as the world knows, COVID hit. The 2 years, like for many, was stretched to over 3 years with very limited access to the face to face interactions we once had and desperately needed for our registration hours. So, by the end of all of this I’d spent over 7 years in intensive study - albeit prolonged.
Worth noting the 4+2 pathway did discontinue in 2022, but the people completing the pathway weren’t asked to stop mid course, it just didn’t allow for new candidates to register.
I hope this clears up any concern around my educational background and allows others to enjoy the rest of the piece and the core messages.
In saying that, I agree with David, it’s an important layer to add to this piece as we do need to hold one another accountable - especially in this world of AI where information becomes increasingly believed… and often blurred.
I believe psychology, biology and neuroscience along with nutrition make up the manual of life. I can see the tension between spending ages learning and getting accustomed to techniques and methods that are antiquated or ineffective by the time you get to use them. That is a real gap I have seen in many disciplines especially software engineering where technology moves so you can blink and miss out. But chasing the latest trend or hype is a guaranteed recipe for burnout. The fundamentals don't change, problem solving or analytical skills can be applied to any programming language or system. Probably the same happens for psychology people’s problems don't change, being able to relate, stay with uncertainty or process difficult emotions.
I can definitely relate with the catch up therapy and how it erodes trust, continuity and ultimately resolution.
Leaving a sinking sensation of loss or failure, failure to explain, failure to be understood.
initially chalked it up as a system or environmental limitation but it can also render therapy largely ineffective when you have to spend half a session catching up.
That is where an AI system wins. Even with perfect recall though a lot of things will get filtered out via context compression or ranking.
The clear win with a human therapist that can never be replaced or replicated unless an AI system has lived experiences. That connection that is born by sitting in silence, as a patient seeing the therapist react to something heavy you just said, someone that can feel your pain because they can imagine themselves in that situation.
On the other hand AI systems are available 24/7 on your phone. They have access to the world wide web and all the articles ever written. It can explain in amazing detail and help work through issues with surprising accuracy. It can become a learning tool or a void you can scream into with no consequences, good or bad.
Using AI systems or traditional software for automating admin is something that should be happening already.
I would gladly contribute to Rosie's and Marika's mission to use AI as an enabler and accelerator in order to provide better care to their patients by offering my software engineering skills coupled with my passion for psychology and active engagement in the AI scene.
Hey Alex, my email is rosie@eckohealth.ai if you do want to reach out. Would love your resume
What stands out is the line between support and replacement.
The value seems to be in reducing the load around the work so clinicians can stay present in it, not in trying to replicate the work itself.
Haha that's it -- you've managed to summarise what it took me 14 questions to say. Simple as that.
Very interesting piece. One thing I wondered as I imagined the AI in the therapy session, was this: will it be able to judge and inform the clinician’s approach? It’s collecting data on both patient *and* practitioner. Add in an overseeing piece of AI, one (or several) which collect data across practices and you may have an extra form of useful information - perhaps. If curiosity prevails, and not fear, that could be another use? (I am in no way connected to either the AI or psychology professions, simply an interested individual.)
I think what could be an awesome thing to introduce to universities is a course wherein students have to discern between AI output and human..?
This is a thoughtful interview, and the questions raised about AI in mental health are important ones. A few observations on the framing are worth noting.
Rosie is described as “Clinical Lead” and at “the forefront of AI in mental health,” while the interview itself indicates she completed the 4+2 pathway, a route AHPRA phased out in 2022, and identifies as an early career psychologist. The 4+2 is four years of undergraduate study and two years of supervised practice, so even allowing for a longer supervised period, the description of training as “the better part of a decade” reads as generous.
Postgraduate clinical training places significant emphasis on calibrated, evidence-supported claims and on recognising the limits of one’s own expertise. Comparisons to established medical technology, and clinical efficacy claims for tools without published validation, are areas where that discipline matters.
There is also a reasonable question about how AHPRA’s advertising guidelines apply to a piece that reads editorially but functions promotionally for a commercial platform.
None of this is a comment on Rosie personally. It is a comment on the standards the profession expects, and on the responsibility of more senior voices, including regulators, to engage with this space more visibly than they currently are.
Thank you for the comment.
You’re right to highlight the importance of clarity around training, evidence, and the standards expected in clinical practice. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be part of the conversation as AI starts to enter this space.
The intention of my interview questions were to present a real-world perspective from someone working at the intersection of clinical practice and emerging technology, and I think Rosie offers a number of thoughtful and valuable insights on how this is beginning to play out in practice.
I also take your point about how this sits in relation to professional and regulatory standards. That’s an area that is still evolving, and one that clearly needs more visible engagement from governing bodies.
Appreciate you taking the time to share this. It adds an important layer to the discussion.
Just to clarify: my reference to AHPRA was about guidelines that already exist, not standards still evolving. The advertising provisions under Section 133, the Psychology Board’s advertising guidelines, and the shared Code of Conduct all currently apply to how registered psychologists are represented in promotional and editorial contexts. The gap is in enforcement and visibility, not in the standards themselves.
Hey Kel, thanks for the comment.
You are correct, it is a 4 year pathway that I commenced. I started university in 2017, and studied for four years. I then took up the + 2 component in 2021 in replacement of my masters for reasons stated above. Unfortunately, as the world knows, COVID hit. The 2 years, like for many, was stretched to over 3 years with very limited access to the face to face interactions we once had and desperately needed for our registration hours. So, by the end of all of this I’d spent over 7 years in intensive study - albeit prolonged.
Worth noting the 4+2 pathway did discontinue in 2022, but the people completing the pathway weren’t asked to stop mid course, it just didn’t allow for new candidates to register.
I hope this clears up any concern around my educational background and allows others to enjoy the rest of the piece and the core messages.
In saying that, I agree with David, it’s an important layer to add to this piece as we do need to hold one another accountable - especially in this world of AI where information becomes increasingly believed… and often blurred.