Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

jeffs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#31

Post by qarl »

> Prolific AI psychosis occurs when a person generates a large quantity of AI output without significantly increasing the real value of their work. In some cases, the new AI workflow may even destroy value.

HA! I love how he entirely discounts the possibility that there are people for whom AI does significantly increase the real value of their work.

Look - I get it - good software engineers are hard to come by - and a lot of people do make slop. But it's still very naive to think that it all must be slop.

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#32

Post by peab »

spudlyo wrote: post #27
peab wrote: post #4

I 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 agree that there are people who can see the potential of these tools, and are enthusiastic boosters, yet are still unable to realize the benefits for themselves for whatever reason. I feel like these people are somewhat rare, and labeling them has having a kind of psychosis strikes me as sneering elitism.

I don't think I elaborated on the type of person that I would consider having AI psychosis. It isn't just being enthusiastic. What I've seen (and it's not common, but I've seen it a few times), is this sort of arrogance around using AI, this "better than thou" attitude, and lack of consideration for things outside of AI, in their real life.

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#33

Post by peab »

ninininino wrote: post #19
peab wrote: post #4

I 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…

How would you feel about applying the same rule to artists? I've seen people who work on art nonstop and think their art is really meaningful, get really into it, but there's little output that anyone cares about or that changes the world or that anyone would pay for. On the other hand I've had friends who created some art, and have real customers paying real money, ....so it's easy to tell their art project is meani…

I think a lot of artists want to have psychosis because it would improve their art ahaha.

On a more serious note - real art is not validated by making money. If you want to be a full time artist, then you also have to run a business. But if all you care about is the art, then money has no relevance.

Business on the other hand, is all about making money.

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#34

Post by altcognito »

ethin wrote: post #28
altcognito wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did dig into that after I read it. Even more depressing honestly. He should know better than to throw around labels.

Sorry but the pro-AI/AI boosters do the exact same thing when they say that people who don't use AI are "Luddites" and the like. And I'm pretty sure the Luddite thing has been going on for far longer than the AI psychosis labeling.

Also a luddite is not thought of as a danger to others. The label of psychosis implies otherwise. Luddite extends beyond AI

Whataboutism is a plague.

That said, calling folks luddites is an annoyance.

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#35

Post by beepbooptheory »

altcognito wrote: post #20
beepbooptheory wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did dig into that after I read it. Even more depressing honestly. He should know better than to throw around labels.

Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#36

Post by altcognito »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #35
altcognito wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did dig into that after I read it. Even more depressing honestly. He should know better than to throw around labels.

Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term? Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here? In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much match…

> Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

I specifically take issue with the weak standard used.

> Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

Is there a way to read this that isn't insulting? Do I need to reflect on my understanding until it matches yours?

> In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

Never said any of that. It's a medical term and carries weight. Core symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. Here, delusions is not "my corporate product is better than your corporate product", it is not a strongly held belief that isn't real. We don't call belief in God psychosis. (some do, but that's beside the point)

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#37

Post by _verandaguy »

altcognito wrote: post #2

People 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'll disagree, I think AI meaningfully changes the definition of a bad coworker because its main interface emulates talking to another human being closely enough that some people value its conversational input equally or more highly than that of actual human beings.

I think that this is exacerbated by many LLMs defaulting to placating, complementing, and otherwise reinforcing biases in their users, and it will often produce just enough evidence to make its (and its user's) position seem compelling, while that evidence is often either tangential, orthogonal, or straight-up hallucinated.

Humans aren't perfect vessels for information, but working on a reasonably-qualified, healthy team, a degree of respectful professional disagreement has always been the norm, and that covers both cases where the disagreement comes from a genuine matter of opinion, as well as cases where one colleague cross-checks anothers' assumptions and finds some of them to be wrong. That's the process.

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#38

Post by beepbooptheory »

altcognito wrote: post #36
beepbooptheory wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term? Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here? In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much match…

> Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term? I specifically take issue with the weak standard used. > Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here? Is there a way to read this that isn't insulting? Do I nee…

Hey so sorry to insult! Cards on the table, I was certainly called to reflect on my assumptions about the term and its use when I read the article, but I can certainly see how that comment would feel ludicrous/offensive to someone so knowledgeable. Thanks here for the lesson.

Just so I don't get in trouble in the future: is it correct or incorrect to assume psychosis is necessarily accompanied by violence? I only ask because you response to the sibling comment seems to contradict your response to me? But, as you can probably tell, I am not working with much brainpower over here, so I am sure I am just misunderstanding!

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#39

Post by duskwuff »

tescreal wrote: post #24

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the popular use of the phrase relating to people who exhibited actual psychosis-like symptoms where the AI fed into a lowlevel but undeveloped delusion? Later people would appear to be experiencing a full blown episode which was fed and maintained by their interaction with AI?

Yes. This typically manifested as either:

- religious or mystical experiences, often paired with the belief that the AI model is a manifestation of a divine being and/or has become sentient

- belief that the person has made a great scientific breakthrough using AI, typically in someone with no real knowledge of the field (which was usually theoretical physics)

- paranoid fantasies, e.g. belief that one is being followed or surveilled, that one's computers or other electronic devices have been compromised, etc.

(Ars Technica reports on a particularly horrifying instance of the first type at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/man-told-chatgpt....)

Re: Defining AI Psychosis. Part 2: "Prolific AI Psychosis"

#40

Post by gfody »

paimapi wrote: post #18
datakan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Psychosis as a diagnosis is a serious condition. there's an implication that there's 'harm' I just watched a company fire an entire department of people under the sincere belief a chatbot run by a middle manager could save them 10 million a year. This failed miserably and they now need to hire or re-hire people. There is a tremendous amount of harm happening. Psychosis is a perfect term for what is happening.

it absolutely is not. when we think of harm in a diagnosis of psychotic disorders, we're talking about things like getting shot to death by the police, running out onto the highway, etc. it is not callously making a lot of people have to jobhunt which isn't to say that layoffs don't suck (I was impacted by one very recently) but it's not psychosis that causes that to happen, it's greed and short-term shareholder-fixa…

I agree that calling all this "psychosis" is motivated primarily by a desire to make the person in question look or sound crazy, and is plainly irresponsible on that front.

chatbots being able to evoke real manic episodes in otherwise healthy people is basically true, though - folie a deux doesn't require both participants to have some disorder, and the AI is packing all of them (and the harm is real, there has been something like 30 MDS cases already)

Post reply on HN