121–130 of 258 posts
It may not be full-blown psychosis, but I’ve seen multiple instances[0][1] of people getting “engaged” (ring and all) to their AI companions. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/s/oZXJ3TUhVC [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/s/nZpoziZO8W
Reading these posts terrifies me to a degree that I can’t explain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cows don't walk in to lampposts either, but that's not telling us much. Roughly 4% of the population are said to have aphantasia (lacking a "mind's eye"). Around 10% (numbers vary) don't have an internal monologue. Unfortunately there's almost no research on the consequences of things which many would consider prerequisites for evaluating truth-claims about the world around them, but obviously it's not quite so stark…
>Roughly 4% of the population are said to have aphantasia (lacking a "mind's eye"). Around 10% (numbers vary) don't have an internal monologue. You don't need either of those to have a world model. A world model is a representation of reality that you can use and manipulate to simulate or predict the outcome of your actions. If you are able to discriminate that one of the actions of accepting a $ 1000000 unconditiona…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Roughly 4% of the population are said to have aphantasia (lacking a "mind's eye"). Around 10% (numbers vary) don't have an internal monologue. You don't need either of those to have a world model. A world model is a representation of reality that you can use and manipulate to simulate or predict the outcome of your actions. If you are able to discriminate that one of the actions of accepting a $ 1000000 unconditiona…
Yup, an ant also has a model of the world. You're arguing a strawman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes everyone with my political beliefs has a well-structured world model As nice as that would be, its only marginally less true. > everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes. Nah, some of them are evil on purpose. but like, in all seriousness. Politics is downstream of a world-model right? And the two predominant world models are giving very different predictions, ri…
> but like, in all seriousness. Politics is downstream of a world-model right? Politics is (if systematically grounded, which for many individuals it probably isn't -and this isn't a statement about one faction or another, it is true across factions) necessarily downstream of a moral/ethical value framework . If that is a consequentialist framework, it necessarily also requires a world model. If it is a deontological…
Yeah, I agree with this.
> necessarily downstream of a moral/ethical value framework. If that is a consequentialist framework, it necessarily also requires a world model. If it is a deontological framework, a world model may or may not be necessary.
I kinda think that deontological frameworks are basically vibes? And if you start to smuggle in enough context about the precise situation where the framework is being applied, it starts to look a lot like just doing consequentialism.
> I...don't agree with the premise of the question that there are "two dominant world models". Even people in the same broad political faction tend to have a wide variety of different world models and moral frameworks; political factions are defined more by shared political conclusions than shared fundamental premises, whether of model or morals; and even within a system like the US where there are two broad electoral coalitions, there more than two identifiable political factions, so even if factions were cohesive around world models, partisan duopoly wouldn't imply a limitation to two dominant world models.
A 'world-model' is a matter of degree and, at a minimum, pluralities of people in any faction don't really have something that meets the bar. And sure, at the limit you could say that reality is entirely subjective because every individual has a unique to them 'world-model'. But I think that goes a bit too far. And I think there's a pretty strong correlation between the accuracy of a given individual's world model and the party they vote for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Roughly 4% of the population are said to have aphantasia (lacking a "mind's eye"). Around 10% (numbers vary) don't have an internal monologue. You don't need either of those to have a world model. A world model is a representation of reality that you can use and manipulate to simulate or predict the outcome of your actions. If you are able to discriminate that one of the actions of accepting a $ 1000000 unconditiona…
Yup, an ant also has a model of the world. You're arguing a strawman.
>First, much like LLMs, lots of people don’t really have world models.
I would have preferred to reserve the term AI psychosis for agentic or autonomous systems experiencing adverse effects from model collapse. While people being impressionable and affected by forces of societal change is not a new phenomenon, I agree that this type of behavior deserves its own label. As long as AI doesn’t have its own feelings, it doesn’t make sense to feel any kind of attachment towards it, or be infl…
Hard disagree. This would further serve the anthropomorfization of LLMs in the eyes of general populace. This IMO supports creation of parasocial relationships to the LLMs and in turn "human AI psychoses". Model collapse is just fine.
That said, there will be a time when deviations in the expected function of intelligence arising from silicon-based processes will have animal disease counterparts. We just haven’t quite reached that time yet.
As useful metric for when we will be close to that time will be when drone are as responsive as birds, and drone swarms demonstrate as much autonomous group cohesion as bird flocks.
> First, much like LLMs, lots of people don’t really have world models. This is interesting and something I never considered in a broad sense. I have noticed how the majority of programmers I worked with do not have a mental model of the code or what it describes – it's basically vibing without an LLM, the result accidental. This is fine and perfectly workable. You need only a fraction of devs to purposefully shape t…
Also, no one has a "world model" that is purely based on experiment and reason. Everyone gets their beliefs via other people first and foremost. Some get it from few people, some get it from many people (many people can still be wrong!).
For code, you may have the model of what it does strictly from reason and experience - but probably only if you're the only author. And you can still damn well be wrong, as we all know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes everyone with my political beliefs has a well-structured world model, everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes.
> Yes everyone with my political beliefs has a well-structured world model As nice as that would be, its only marginally less true. > everyone without my political beliefs is a model-free slop machine that just goes by vibes. Nah, some of them are evil on purpose. but like, in all seriousness. Politics is downstream of a world-model right? And the two predominant world models are giving very different predictions, ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to read the entire article. His depiction of bipolar is completely accurate. In fact it is so precisely accurate in every detail, and conveyed with no extraneous information, is indicative of someone who knows the disorder very well. When I write fiction or important emails, I am precise with the words I use. I notice these kind of details. I’m also bipolar and self-aware enough to be deeply familiar w…
The author is a psychiatrist so it would make sense that he is familiar with the subject.