Live data from Hacker News

In Search of AI Psychosis

astralcodexten.com

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#141

> Suppose that respondents had an average of fifty family members and co-workers, so that plus their 100 closest friends makes 150 people. Say what now? Am i just really socially isolated? Seems insane to me to assume the average person is close enough to 150 people to know how much each of those 150 people use AI and if they are "psychotic".

It's motivated reasoning in order to end up at Dunbar's Number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#142
post #111

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…

Politics are largely a function of self-interest rather than world model per se.

I think that in itself is already an ideological statement. Not everyone sees politics through that lens.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also absurdly wrong, and a quote that only a self-identified rationalist could smugly tout. Of course everyone has world models. Otherwise people would wander into traffic like headless chickens, if they'd even be capable of that. What he likely means is that not everyone explicitly things of possibilities in terms of probabilities that are a function of Bayesian updating. That does not imply the absence of worl…

Yes, everyone has a world model even a toddler has a casual model (“cry → mum comes”).

Maybe the question is about how much of the world model they're conscious of.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics are largely a function of self-interest rather than world model per se.

I think that in itself is already an ideological statement. Not everyone sees politics through that lens.

Of course it's an ideological statement, there is no way to define a concept without having beliefs about that concept.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that in itself is already an ideological statement. Not everyone sees politics through that lens.

Of course it's an ideological statement, there is no way to define a concept without having beliefs about that concept.

Exactly. There is no such thing as non-ideological statements from humans. In the context of this thread, ideology is the name for "world models".

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#146

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.

Ditto. I'd normally be wary of it being organic content, it's Reddit after all. But this unhealthy fringe interest is exactly the kind of topic I'd expect on Reddit so probably it's real.

And who would have an interest in _promoting_ this kind of obsession... oh, maybe AI companies themselves, with which Reddit is already intertwined anyway. Hm. Still seems like a real problem and probably the posts are also by real people. Yes, terrifying.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#147

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

People will anthropomorphize anything from rocks to computers, and obviously to LLMs.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#148
post #132

One problem with his survey -- The Lizardman Constant: > Researchers have demonstrated repeatedly in human surveys the stylized fact that, far from being an oracle or gold standard, a certain small percentage of human responses will reliably be [nonsense]: “jokester” or “mischievous responders”, or more memorably, “lizardman constant” responders—respondents who give the wrong answer to simple questions. > Below a cer…

Scott Alexander has issued many studies in his time and is surely aware of this phenomenon. He was very cautious even in this study to calibrate for this sort of noise; see the section about Michaels you know.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#150
I don’t buy that methodology at all. In particular, if the “Folie a deux machina” (great name for the possible phenomenon, incidentally) theory is correct, a lot of those people will be very isolated, pretty much by definition, and will be severely underepresented.
Post reply on HN