[dead]
In Search of AI Psychosis
161–170 of 258 posts
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
My man. Elaborate on word irreducibility and language as a "tool" for deception. Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies... comes to mind.
The brain is oscillatory and dynamic, everything is in there. It's lossless. The analog nature of compression is limitless. This system if you can call it that, is inseparable from the universe ("The World"). Everything in the model-free system is specific. Nothing is arbitrary here. It's merely idiosyncratic. Words are the other end of this: post-hoc, separate from thought, arbitrary, massively illusory. Language is completely irrelevant to consciousness and is the main reason we cannot acheive it. The slogan for humans should be words anonymous.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#163> 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…
Everyone has a "world model". These models just differ on how much they care about various things. No one has a "world model" which literally encompasses everything about the world, that wouldn't be a model at all, it'd just be the world, much like a 1:1 map. 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 fro…
[deleted]
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#164> We see that the nightmare scenario - a person with no previous psychosis history or risk factor becoming fully psychotic - was uncommon, at only 10% of cases. Most people either had a previous psychosis history known to the respondent, or had some obvious risk factor, or were merely crackpots rather than full psychotics. It's unfortunate to see the author take this tack. This is essentially taking the conventional…
> 'biological' mental illness is tightly coupled to qualitative mental state, and bidirectionally at that. Not only do your chemicals influence your thoughts, your thoughts influence your chemicals, and it's possible for a vulnerable person to be pushed over the edge by either kind of input. We like to think that 'as long as nothing is chemically wrong' we're a-ok, but the truth is that it's possible for simple norma…
It is entirely uncontroversial that mental states affect the physical body. You've probably observed this yourself, directly, if you've ever had headaches or muscle tightness related to mental or emotional stress.
We can use MRIs to directly observe brain differences due to habitual mental activities (e.g. professional chess players, polyglots, musicians.)
It would be extremely odd if our bodies did not change as a result of mental activity. Your muscles grow differently if you exercise them, why would the nervous or hormonal systems be any different?
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#165One way I've been talking about this with people is that LLMs let you participate in a single-person echo chamber, potentially at a greatly accelerated pace.
It's not surprising that some people end up diverging pretty widely from social norms / beliefs when you look at it this way. We know social echo chambers could do that; now you can easily do it by yourself.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how this comment chain goes directly from > Humans don't have world models To > Of course humans have world models To > You fools , there is no such thing as a "world model" and you are all hamsters! Classic Socratic dialogue.
The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/
How can you say there are no world models, when I can literally draw out a simple one for you on demand?
You can argue that's they're not the governing principle of cognition, but it seems farcical to say they don't even exist, when we are trying to explain them to eachother all the time.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm often reminded of this gallup poll: > How worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism -- very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried or not worried at all? It averages around 35-40% very or somewhat worried. Most people's worries and anxieties are really misaligned with statistical likelihood. https://news.gallup.com/poll/4909/terrorism-united-states.as...
Being worried is different from it actually happening though. If we started executing 10% of the population each year, I think more than 10% of the people would be worried they're next.
At a random 10% everyone could and should be worried that they'd be in the next 10%. That's 10% chance of being executed per year! That's really bad!
It's not at all similar to a _rare_ phenomenon, or at least it _shouldn't_ be, but some people are inclined to treat very fringe risks (or at least some very fringe risks; there are likely more people worried about being killed by terrorism than food poisoning, say) as very great risks.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m calling bullshit. Gambling addiction existed long before machines.
Totally, the book acknowledges this and provides comparison on usage and explanation of how gambling types differed over time. One of my favorite books ever, it describes social media right before social media became a thing but through the lens of a parallel industry.
Ah. In that case, that sounds interesting indeed. I’m going to read it, thank you for the clarification!
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how this comment chain goes directly from > Humans don't have world models To > Of course humans have world models To > You fools , there is no such thing as a "world model" and you are all hamsters! Classic Socratic dialogue.
The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/
Neurology has not proven any such thing. Our knowledge of neuroscience on the cognitive level is super limited and we don't have a good understanding about how any higher-order cognition works.
Re: In Search of AI Psychosis
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a lot of people, the world models are really rough and incomplete, so they really really on common opinion on these matters. This is the same if you tried asking a general populace ethical questions in a vacuum sneakily. You're going to be dismayed after collecting the set of approved behaviors per culture. There's not really a way to evaluate one of these.
I am enormously skeptical of unsourced claims that boil down to "most people are substantially dumber than me, the enlightened one."