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

In Search of AI Psychosis

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 258 posts

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#211

Post by djmips »

whazor wrote: post #203
djmips wrote: post #4

I have encountered this twice amongst people I know. I also feel that pre-AI this was already happening to people with social media - still kind of computer related as the bubble created is automated but the so called 'algorithms'

It is pretty bad to have a thing that can give you dopamine 24/7. Both social media with the algorithms, but also AI. Humans need sleep to function normally. It would help if algorithms were optimised for sleep. Freezing your feed, making content more boring, nudging you to put your phone down. Same with AI, if they know you need to wake up the next day at a certain time, change the responses that add reminders to go…

I remember that Claude would make a remark if you were starting it up late. Like welcome back night owl or something which is kind of a gentle reminder but I don't recall it doing that now. I try not to be up too late though.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#212

Post by suddenlybananas »

mallowdram wrote: post #210
suddenlybananas wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your gumption but I really think that you don't understand things as well as you think you do. Maybe read someone other than Paul Churchland.

Both Churchland's are out of date. Note the references above, this is a neurobiological, dynamic approach they're not party to. If you don't know what those are or optic flow, neural reuse are, then study them. Trad Neuroscience and cog-sci is no longer applicable.

God you are so smug about something you know essentially nothing about.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#213

Post by mallowdram »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #212
mallowdram wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Churchland's are out of date. Note the references above, this is a neurobiological, dynamic approach they're not party to. If you don't know what those are or optic flow, neural reuse are, then study them. Trad Neuroscience and cog-sci is no longer applicable.

God you are so smug about something you know essentially nothing about.

I'm lead dev in a start-up that applies coordination dynamics to spatial-syntax. I probably know quite a bit more than you do about what I'm doing.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#214

Post by dwaltrip »

Mallowram wrote: post #205
dwaltrip wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if you are not being overly reductive / pedantic. What is there then? What words (heh) do you use to distinguish between someone who makes more accurate predictions about the world than someone else?

First off, we don't use predictions, that's another model, it's false (Spontaneous Brain Northoff or read Mofakham's papers). In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves primarily status gain, not know knowledge transmission (I proved this from the first statement above as well). The reality is CS built a math model from totally false premises as it relates to communic…

I think we are talking past each other.

The ideas you mention sound interesting, but I’m not sure what the point is.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#215

Post by mallowdram »

dwaltrip wrote: post #214
Mallowram wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, we don't use predictions, that's another model, it's false (Spontaneous Brain Northoff or read Mofakham's papers). In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves primarily status gain, not know knowledge transmission (I proved this from the first statement above as well). The reality is CS built a math model from totally false premises as it relates to communic…

I think we are talking past each other. The ideas you mention sound interesting, but I’m not sure what the point is.

Words do not function as communication. You asked a pointless question. It has no function except to extract values from actions: it was subjective, arbitrary. Until CS grasps this, it is irrelevant.

All the symptoms from LLM failure rates stem from their reliance in arbitrary forms to extract value, and they are no different than the errors we experience in reality in climate, politics etc. CS didn't solve the initial conditions, it's maxing them out as errors.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#216

Post by lukev »

bccdee wrote: post #198
epiccoleman wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my question is more a question of how whether than whether , if that makes sense. There is something about "thought" affecting "matter" that feels spooky if there is a bidirectional relationship. If thought / consciousness / mind is purely downstream of physics, no spookiness. If somehow experienced states of mind can reach back and cause physical effects... that feels harder to explain. It feels like a sort…

You've struck at the essential problem of dualism. If thoughts are nonphysical, how can thoughts influence our physical bodies? If consciousness does not interact with the physical world, but merely arises from it, then how can we possibly discuss it, since anything we describe is causally linked to our description of it? Descartes thought the soul was linked to the body through the pineal gland, inspiring a long tra…

I mean it's funny you mention Descartes, because I find the argument that consciousness is the ONLY thing you can really know exists for sure to be pretty compelling. (Descartes then significantly loses the thread, hah.)

I agree with you that consciousness is much more fragmented and nonlinear than we perceive it to be, but "I exist" seems pretty tautological to me (for values of "I" that are completely unspecified.)

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#217

Post by bawolff »

alganet wrote: post #138
bawolff wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How dare the author use the scientific method!

Did he?

Well you said, "The author has a hypothesis and it's looking for evidence" - that's usually the definition of the scientific method - you form some hypoothesis and then try and find evidence to test it.

So as far as I can tell, you're describing the scientific method as "bad thinking" and criticizing the author for using it. Which is certainly quite a take.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#218

Post by nitwit005 »

solid_fuel wrote: post #15

The comparison to social media is an apt one. I have been told directly, by relatives, that the city I live in was burned to the ground by protests in 2020. Nevermind that I told them that wasn't true, never mind that I sent pictures of the neighborhood still very much being fine. They are convinced because everyone they follow on facebook repeats the same thing.

This sort of thing has become more ambiguous with "conspiracy theories" becoming brought into mainstream politics in the US. It's never clear if they actually believe it, or they're sort of cheerleading for their political cause.

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#219

Post by 11101010001100 »

meowface wrote: post #186
reidalert wrote: post #131

The description of the risk factors very much jibes with what I have seen in a friend recently. He is quite isolated, and spends most of his evenings writing using AI (he works in a blue-collar trade and wouldn't be typing stuff out by hand usually). He's convinced that he has discovered a grand theory of human connection / relationships / energy / physics, and keeps interrupting in conversation to explain how someth…

Not to get political but I suspect this kind of thing is also pretty analogous to how many otherwise normal but often unintelligent people get into things like neo-Nazism through online influencing. (I am just speculating that the person you're referring to is unintelligent.)

Behold, irony!

Re: In Search of AI Psychosis

#220

Post by nitwit005 »

cluckindan wrote: post #21

Relevant: https://ghaemi.substack.com/p/why-dsm-is-mostly-false > All psychopathology was about unconscious emotional conflicts, mainly dating to childhood; if the conflicts were normal or mild, they produced “neuroses”; if they were severe, they produced “psychoses.” > In addition to 14 validated diagnoses published in the RDC in 1978, a mere two years later DSM-III came out with 292 claimed diagnoses. There is no m…

All diagnoses are inherently made up. It's just humans lumping symptoms that appear similar into categories.

If you want to communicate about patients, you need an agreed set of categories.

What makes good categories is indeed what's most useful for the related profession(s). They're the ones who actually have to use them to communicate.

Post reply on HN