Can AI Reason Like A Therapist?

The rise of generative AI has led to a provocative and polarizing question: Can AI reason like a therapist or clinician?

As AI systems like OpenAI's GPT models and Google's Gemini gain prominence, they are increasingly integrated into mental health care and counselling settings. But do these systems actually reason in a way that resembles how human clinicians approach their work? Or are they simply mimicking understanding through pattern recognition, devoid of true judgment and ethical nuance?

The answer is not as simple as it seems—and it sparks a deeper debate about the limits of AI and the irreplaceable human element in mental health care.

What is "Reasoning" in Therapy?

To assess whether AI can reason like a therapist, we must first define what "reasoning" means in a clinical context. Human therapists and clinicians engage in a dynamic, multi-faceted process of reasoning, which often involves:

1. Contextual Understanding: Therapists draw from a rich background of personal, cultural, and relational factors to understand a client’s situation in its entirety.
2. Diagnostic Reasoning: Clinicians apply evidence-based frameworks to identify mental health disorders or assess risk factors.
3. Ethical Judgment: A crucial aspect of therapy is ethical decision-making—knowing the limits of one's expertise and acting with compassion, patience, and restraint.
4. Reflective Practice: Therapists continuously self-reflect and adjust their approach based on real-time feedback from the client, their reactions, and evolving circumstances.
5. Emotional Intelligence: Therapists are not just coldly processing data. They are responding with empathy, understanding emotional nuances, and navigating complex human emotions.

This kind of reasoning is not merely about finding the "right answer." It’s about making decisions within a web of ethical concerns, client history, and emotional dynamics.

Historical Perspective: The Evolution of AI Reasoning

The journey of AI reasoning has been marked by significant technological shifts, each phase building upon the limitations of the last.

In the early days, rule-based systems dominated the landscape from the 1960s through the 1980s. These systems operated using strict, predefined rules, much like decision trees. While useful for tasks with clear, logical sequences—such as basic diagnosis or triage—these systems were rigid and unable to adapt to new or unexpected scenarios. Their “if-then” logic could mimic simple decision-making but was far from resembling human-like reasoning.

Moving into the 1980s and 1990s, expert systems emerged as an attempt to replicate human expertise in specific domains. These systems encoded the knowledge of professionals in areas such as medicine, finance, and law, providing more flexible solutions compared to their rule-based predecessors. However, their effectiveness was still limited by the knowledge they were explicitly programmed with. They lacked the ability to learn beyond their initial training, meaning their reasoning was confined to the rules and facts they were given.

The rise of machine learning in the 1990s marked a paradigm shift, enabling AI to go beyond static knowledge bases and begin learning from data. These systems could identify patterns, make predictions, and improve their accuracy over time, representing a significant leap forward in AI's ability to mimic human reasoning. For example, in mental health, machine learning models began assisting with predictive analytics, such as forecasting the likelihood of a mental health crisis based on patterns in patient data.

Then came the explosion of deep learning in the 2010s, which transformed the field. Deep learning models, powered by neural networks, could process vast amounts of unstructured data, including text, images, and speech. These systems began recognizing complex patterns with far greater accuracy, driving advancements in everything from language processing to facial recognition. In healthcare, deep learning models now assist in tasks as complex as interpreting medical imaging or understanding the nuances of natural language in therapeutic dialogues. Yet, despite their power, even deep learning models lack the ability to replicate the emotional and ethical layers of reasoning found in human clinicians.

As we look at AI’s current capabilities, we must remember that while it has come far—from rule-based logic to learning from vast data sets—its evolution is still ongoing. The development of reasoning in AI is promising, but it remains distinct from the holistic, emotionally attuned, and ethically grounded reasoning that defines human professionals in mental health and healthcare.

Summarizing, the development of AI reasoning has progressed through several stages:

1. Rule-based systems (1960s-1980s): Early AI used predetermined rules to make decisions, similar to decision trees.
2. Expert systems (1980s-1990s): More sophisticated programs attempted to replicate human expert knowledge in specific domains.
3. Machine learning (1990s-present): Systems that can learn from data, identifying patterns and making predictions.
4. Deep learning (2010s-present): Neural networks capable of processing vast amounts of data and recognizing complex patterns.

Can AI Mimic Reasoning?

On the surface, large language models (LLMs) seem astonishingly capable. They can engage in dialogue, simulate therapeutic conversations, and even provide useful coping strategies based on vast amounts of training data. But when it comes to true reasoning, the question becomes more complex.

Here's how AI systems compare to human reasoning in mental health care.

1. Pattern Recognition, Not Understanding

AI models are built on vast datasets, training them to recognize patterns in language. When asked a question, they don’t understand the content in the human sense; instead, they predict what response fits best based on what they have "seen" before. This prediction can sound incredibly insightful, but it’s not grounded in actual comprehension of a person's emotions, trauma, or mental state.

For instance, an AI could give practical advice about managing anxiety by offering techniques like deep breathing or mindfulness, simply because these are common strategies in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). But can it understand why a particular patient might need deeper intervention, like trauma-informed care? The answer is no—it is guessing based on prior data, not engaging in meaningful reasoning about the individual's specific context.

2. No Genuine Ethical Judgment

Therapists are bound by ethical frameworks that guide their practice—knowing when to refer out, when to prioritize client autonomy, or how to handle situations like self-harm or suicidal ideation. AI systems lack this kind of ethical reasoning. They can simulate conversations about boundaries or confidentiality, but they don’t possess an internalized understanding of ethics.

For example, if a client expressed suicidal thoughts to an AI, the system might respond with a recommendation to seek professional help, a potentially helpful answer. But could the AI genuinely understand the urgency or weigh the severity of the situation in the same way a trained clinician might? It cannot—AI lacks the depth of ethical judgment needed to manage life-and-death decisions. Its responses are ultimately programmed, not reasoned.

3. Contextual Blindness

Therapists draw from their training, but they also rely on lived experience, intuition, and context. They know that certain cultural, familial, or personal dynamics shape how people present their problems. AI doesn’t have this richness. Even the most advanced models lack the ability to deeply comprehend the nuances of a person's lived experience.

Consider a scenario where a patient discusses familial obligations within a traditional cultural framework that influences their mental health. While AI can pull information about cultural sensitivity from its dataset, it doesn’t have a deep-seated understanding of what that cultural context means. Its reasoning, therefore, is surface-level, unable to fully grasp the underlying complexity of the issue.

4. Chain of Thought (CoT) and Its Limitations

Advancements in AI reasoning, such as Chain of Thought (CoT), have made systems more capable of handling step-by-step logical processes. This is useful in domains like coding and math, but mental health is not about formulaic problem-solving. Even if AI can walk through a structured reasoning process, it lacks the reflective capacity and emotional intelligence that human therapists bring to the table.

Mental health is not about formulaic problem-solving.

In practice, AI might follow a chain of reasoning—such as identifying symptoms of depression and suggesting a therapeutic approach—but it doesn't engage with the emotional and relational dimensions that human clinicians naturally factor into their reasoning. This creates a gulf between what AI can offer and the intricate, compassionate reasoning a therapist uses in real life.

AI Offers Support, Not Replacement

AI certainly has a role to play in the future of mental health care, but not as a replacement for human therapists. Where AI truly shines is in supportive roles that augment the work of human clinicians. Here are some areas where AI can provide value:

• Triage and Screening: AI can be used to flag potential mental health concerns in initial assessments, guiding patients toward appropriate human care.
• Psychoeducation: AI can efficiently provide evidence-based information on mental health topics, empowering patients with knowledge.
• Routine Interventions: For lower-stakes interventions, like managing mild anxiety or offering sleep hygiene tips, AI can provide useful, structured responses.
• Augmenting Therapy: AI could serve as a tool for therapists to analyze language patterns, predict risk factors, or monitor progress, enhancing clinical judgment rather than replacing it.

What’s Lost When We Anthropomorphize AI?

The biggest danger in the ongoing development of AI for mental health care is anthropomorphizing the technology. We may be tempted to believe that because AI can generate convincing dialogue, it "understands" mental health. But this is an illusion.

The stakes in mental health care are too high for us to blur the lines between pattern recognition and true reasoning.

While AI can mimic certain elements of therapeutic reasoning, it cannot embody the full depth of human cognition, ethical awareness, or emotional empathy. To place too much trust in these systems is to risk reducing therapy to a mere transactional exchange of words—stripping it of its human heart.

Final Thoughts

The question of whether AI can reason like a therapist or clinician doesn’t just challenge our understanding of technology. It forces us to reflect on what makes human reasoning in therapy so irreplaceable: the capacity for empathy, ethical decision-making, and emotional intelligence.

Simply put: Not yet; maybe never.

As professionals in the field, we must tread carefully. While AI offers unprecedented opportunities to enhance mental health care—such as automating administrative tasks, supporting early detection of symptoms, and providing scalable psychoeducation—it cannot replace the essential human elements that form the foundation of effective therapy and counseling. The therapeutic alliance, the ability to read between the lines of what’s said and unsaid, and the instinctive capacity for empathy, are beyond the reach of any algorithm. AI can process vast amounts of data quickly, but it cannot replicate the nuanced ethical decision-making, cultural sensitivity, or emotional intuition that human clinicians bring to the table. It remains fundamentally limited in addressing the relational, contextual, and ethical dimensions that define mental health care.

Instead of looking to AI to replicate human reasoning, we should embrace it as a complementary tool that supports our work, not as a substitute for human connection.

AI can serve as a powerful adjunct in augmenting mental health services but the heart of therapy, the relational and ethical dimensions, remain irreplaceably human.

As we integrate AI into our workflows, it's crucial to set clear ethical boundaries and maintain the centrality of human judgment and care in therapeutic practice. Let’s leverage AI to enhance our capacity, not diminish the critical role we play in navigating the complexities of human experience.

Join Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health

Join Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health for science-based developments at the intersection of AI and mental health, with no promotional content or marketing.

Join here: https://www.dhirubhai.net/groups/14227119/