> 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".
In Search of AI Psychosis
141–150 of 258 posts
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#142Earlier 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.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#143Earlier 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”).
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#144Earlier 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.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#145Earlier 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.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#146It 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.
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
#147It 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
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#148One 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…