I dislike this immensely and actively seek health care providers that don't use these tools.

My core problem is that I want a professional who engages with me as a human and knows me.

I'm a professional (not in health care) but I "know" all of my clients, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a client or patient. When I pay $100 to talk to a GP for 10 minutes, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to have a conversation with me, really truly listen to me, and spend a few minutes writing some notes.

In the case of a mental health professional the time spent after an appointment with a patient is much greater. I don't really want what I've said to be automatically converted to notes for a human to review. I want a human to consider the human to human conversation we have had, in the context of other conversations we have had and the relationship I have with them, and use those insights to produce appropriate documentation.

Finally, I have a strongly held belief that relying on the assistance of gen AI reduces one's skills and abilities. For example, consider two therapists who have just completed their education and accreditation and start seeing patients. One uses gen AI to produce notes for every patient, the other eschews this practice. Ten years later, which therapist would you really trust to listen to patients and be able to distill the key elements of the conversation both spoken and unspoken?

That said, I'm aware that these services are becoming an industry standard. I suppose they may help therapists see more patients, and in the context of public health that might be a good thing. Whether or not I would use a service like this if I were a therapist is a difficult question to answer. If I were just starting out I think I probably would. That is to say my beef isn't with you personally using a service like this, more that it's becoming an industry standard.