AI, Psychotherapy, and the Classroom

My new book, has, at last, received a publication date, August 20, 2026. That’s the end of the summer and it has me thinking about its role in the classroom for the teaching of psychotherapy, coaching, and counseling.

My coach, a former academician, told me the teaching profession is in crisis and needs something new. It started with a worldwide malaise that has accelerated dramatically with the arrival of AI. Teachers are experiencing what Per Størup Lauridsen calls “professional grief,” feeling that the knowledge they prided themselves on acquiring and possessing is now a cheap commodity. UNESCO reassures that “Teachers cannot be coded,” but students and teachers alike are afraid that the professions they are so invested in will be replaced.

The problem may be outside my domain, but the solution is at the center of it. The short answer is that AI is great at revealing what everyone else is saying, but it can’t reproduce three essential qualities central to both teaching and therapy: authenticity, empathy, and inspiration. Let’s look at them, one at a time.

The reason authenticity is valued in teachers and therapists is that it is one of the main Indicators that we are dealing with a person we can trust. People who are authentic are not “false.” That means they are open and comfortable with their unique point of view and with their own self-interest. Specifically, they don’t have a hidden agenda they are trying to impose. In a world filled with people bent on influencing and manipulating us to support some hidden agendas, that’s become increasingly rare.

Other species demonstrate the ability to mislead. Insects imitate each other in looks and behavior. Even viruses mimic the abilities of other organisms. Among birds and mammals, the ability to imitate and even trick others is common. But in humans, where survival has been transferred from fending off predators to joining together in groups, misleading each other has become an art.

Of all the ways other humans try to fool us, one of the most common and effective is faking authenticity. Think of the sophistication of the last e-mail scam that tempted you to send precious personal information. When we do catch them, the tiniest hints of inauthenticity are what make us begin to suspect fraud. When we don’t, it’s most often because they exploited an area of existing unsureness, need, or concern. The best at this are those who can pass a lie detector test without a physiological response.

Both the inner, subcortical mind, and the conscious mind are acutely wary of even small hints of inauthenticity. Both are constantly on the lookout for falseness. Wariness is greater when the stakes are high and when there is a past history of being hurt. The exception to the latter is the learned pattern of “bleaching red flags.”

Many factors go into developing trust. In conversation we look especially for spontaneity, those involuntary signs of affect and responses over which we have little control. It might even be when a therapist loses their composure and gets angry or sad. Those are the moments when we get a glimpse into the other’s heart. Having a relationship over time helps, but what really allows us to experience genuineness is the working out of conflicts, where each participant’s balance between self-interest and flexibility is tested to the limit. That’s why repairing ruptures is probably better than having none.

AI doesn’t sweat. That’s already a disadvantage. It doesn’t show the telltale signs of stress that humans mostly do. That’s because AI doesn’t have the emotional drive that gives humans motivation. Chat GPT is programmed to sound warm and familiar, but that’s fake. It works when people need or want it, but, without our cooperation, its attempts to trick us reveal how simplistic and exploitative it is. I personally prefer an AI like Perplexity that (so far) doesn’t attempt a false intimacy.

The basis of these differences is important. Humans are truly unique. We are not “trained” on a vast mass of written material. Rather, we are each exposed to a completely unique unfolding of experiences and meaning making. We don’t arrive at the expectable average, but at our own special version of reality. We and AI both store clumps of associations, but ours are far bigger. Our brains have tens to hundreds of times the capacity and complexity of LLMs. Bladerunner, the movie depiction of indistinguishable humanoids, isn’t here yet. And will we want to create those when we are more able? I hope not.

Only people with a very fragile ego don’t want to be seen by others. The rest of us want to be noticed, appreciated as unique humans, and not commoditized by labels and categories. Empathy is a basic capacity not only to be able to picture another’s mind, but to feel their needs, emotions, and experiences. Accurate empathy can be cultivated, but it is built on an inborn foundation. Mirror neurons, oxytocin and other biological equipment support this evolutionarily vital ability.

Does AI have the capacity to mimic empathy? As per the discussion above, I don’t think today’s computers have the capacity to go further than a few parameters to distinguish one person from the average. When we humans conjure up an impression of the others’ mind, the result utilizes the same complex meaning making that underlies authenticity. It’s what ensures that one person’s impression of a painting or a movie is different from another’s, yet two people can enjoy discussing the experience together.

In both the classroom and the therapy room, the emotions of the other person count for a lot. Those are what inspire. Even in a “blank slate” style of psychotherapy, the only thing different is the subtlety of the signs on which the client bases an interpretation of the analyst’s attitudes and emotions. Human memory systems tag emotional intensity with special importance and remember those events more vividly. We are programmed from the beginning of life to learn from others who are older and more experienced. Feeling the energy and passion of another is how we come to understand what it is to care about something and pursue it. Perhaps it won’t be for us, but the presence of a trusted person exhibiting their own passion is powerfully memorable and formative.

This brings to mind the powerful experience of a visit to the New Orleans swamps. Our swamp guide was passionate about his unique environment. He told us that the rest of his family didn’t feel the same, but he had been touched by his grandfather’s passion for the patch of swamp the family owned. That was his inspiration, and for him it made a career and a deep connection. His feeling allowed him to pass on and enlarge the unique experience of each of the tourists he took under his wing for the afternoon.

So, yes, I think it will be a long time before machines are fully able to replace teachers or therapists. When they do, we’ll have to decide if that’s how we want our world to operate. We’ll need to turn to today’s science fiction to begin to fathom what it would be like to interact with a truly humanoid thing with its own uniqueness, authenticity, empathy, and ability to inspire.

Jeffery Smith MD

How Psychotherapy Works: Navigating the Therapeutic Space with Confidence is now available for pre-order with a discount for therapists, counselors, interested consumers, and teachers as well. Please tell those you know who would like to understand more about how people change and how our authenticity, empathy, and inspiration are essential to the process.

See Publisher Description