Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#2People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse.
FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work.
Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker.
I'm pretty sure that the "psychosis" will be abused by folks that just don't like AI. You already see it everywhere.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#3People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse. FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. I'm pretty sure…
> Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker.
Not that long ago. People generating large quantities of AI output is a relatively recent phenomenon. At least when compared to labels like this.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#4I was talking to a friend recently, and i think i aligned with a similar definition.
I've seen people who talk nonstop about AI, and how it's changed everything, but then there's no quantifiable output that supports their claim.
On the other hand, I've had a friend start a business, and be able to create an app much much faster than what would have been possible in the past. He has real customers paying real money, which makes it easy to validate his claims.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#5People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse. FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. I'm pretty sure…
> Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. Not that long ago. People generating large quantities of AI output is a relatively recent phenomenon. At least when compared to labels like this.
low effort work though, that's nothing new... accelerating that low effort: that is new... but the low effort work hasn't been changed by ai: only illuminated more clearly.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#6I think that specifically in the case of a coworker in a technical field, say software engineer, we already have an apprenticeship system (junior, senior, architect, etc) where the use of these tools, taste, competence, evaluating code and architecture, are all experience-based and pretty self evident as you progress through your profession and gain experience. The same for, say, an electrician or any skilled trade. These AI tools are just those, another tool that you use to further your profession and of course somebody starting out will perhaps generate more slop or bad code. But more senior coworkers with experience, taste, criteria, etc will guide those people and you progress and improve.
Beyond that, when the tool becomes more than a tool and becomes your coworker, with his/her/its own criteria, taste, methods, etc - than THAT is when the rubber hits the road. haha.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#7People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse. FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. I'm pretty sure…
I was bound to agree with you before I RTFA. The classification is useful for a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who wants to help the person.
"Bad coworker" can have many causes. In prolific AI psychosis, I think the assumption (differential diagnosis) is, they became a "bad coworker" due to use of AI, so they were a "good coworker" before.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#8People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse. FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. I'm pretty sure…
Song as old as time - people were doing this well before AI, there's just yet another reason for these types of people to categorize workers and pretend that management can be perfect and easy and that the world isn't hard.
It's almost as if it's a little bit harder than people think to figure out how good people are at their jobs and who deserves promotions, etc, and that maybe they may not have the most perfect unbiased judgements.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#9People really need an entire article to justify labeling someone as having a mental illness because in their opinion, the their coworker isn't contributing meaninfully, or potentially making things worse. FTA: > Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. Guy, we used to just call this a bad coworker. I'm pretty sure…
You certainly seem to have your mind made up about this either way, but a humble fwiw nevertheless: the author is a psychiatrist, not some bitter dev/hypothetical coworker like you seem to be suggesting.
Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"
#10I was talking to a friend recently, and i think i aligned with a similar definition. I've seen people who talk nonstop about AI, and how it's changed everything, but then there's no quantifiable output that supports their claim. On the other hand, I've had a friend start a business, and be able to create an app much much faster than what would have been possible in the past. He has real customers paying real money, w…
> I've seen people who talk nonstop about ________, and how it's changed everything, but then there's no quantifiable output that supports their claim.
These people have existed forever