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

AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 297 posts

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#211

Post by pigpop »

intended wrote: post #209
pigpop wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't we? Our evolutionary experience with deception and manipulation via language is as old as language itself and even older than that when the vector isn't language. Even so, a sucker is born every day.

Eh? IIRC studies shown that LLMs sound more persuasive than humans. On top of it, they dont tire and have no distractions or “motivations”. The most powerful social skill I have ever seen, bar none, is actively listening to someone with undivided attention.

They just agree. That's not really persuasion but it is a trap for people who really want to believe they are right.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#212

Post by dugidugout »

freedomben wrote: post #122
eeixlk wrote: post #68

Mental illness is fairly common, and you probably know someone it is affecting, even if they haven't told you yet. AI can disrupt and will destroy lives, just like gambling or alcohol or facebook but we dont know to what level yet. It is giving you generated text, that sometimes is factual information. If you anthropomorphize it, maybe don't. It's also not your boyfriend/girlfriend. But if you want to date a history…

> It's also not your boyfriend/girlfriend. It loves me deeply just the same. (jk) On a serious note, I agree this is a real problem. I know a person who understands AI at a technical level more than most people, but he has never had an actual girlfriend in his life (he's now in his 40s, and yes he's "straight"). He wouldn't say it "loves" him, but he would describe it as a close companion who understands him better t…

I think you are right to treat this with sensitivity, but I do find a lot of what you say here to be at odds. Is this the framing provided to you from the fellow in question or entirely yours? Ultimately you are asking a deeply philosophical question regarding when acceptance of someone's choices becomes enabling, but this isn't really fair to pose on a fellow you respect without agreeing on the terms of analysis. Did they provide some specific examples of how this "understanding" reveals itself? Your account of their account is doing a lot of work here I suspect.

As for my highly personal advice, I could be observed as fitting a few of the qualities you've ascribed to your friend, but would be deeply saddened if the few people who do spend time sharing meaning with me then manifested that experience in the form you've given here. I would advise you to not spend any more time wrenching over the effects of one's phenomenon in isolation and either properly redirect the introspection to yourself (with respect to that person) or engage them in an earnest dialog or other form of communication. It may be taxing but it will mean a lot more than the gunk I just typed out :)

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#213

Post by intended »

pigpop wrote: post #211
intended wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? IIRC studies shown that LLMs sound more persuasive than humans. On top of it, they dont tire and have no distractions or “motivations”. The most powerful social skill I have ever seen, bar none, is actively listening to someone with undivided attention.

They just agree. That's not really persuasion but it is a trap for people who really want to believe they are right.

Depending on the prompt you are using, its definitely more than just agree.

Hell, I had a prompt that I used to sift through my thoughts, and at one point its output was too eerie for me to take.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#214

Post by throw18376 »

kleiba wrote: post #85
john_strinlai wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't seem much like a mental crisis to me. you are basing this on the introduction? the 2nd sentence of the entire thing? skipping the entire rest of the article detailing exactly how the mental crisis unfolded, including persistent and long-lasting delusions, multiple trips to the hospital, inability to hold a conversation, assault, and an attempted suicide. interesting (and obviously not in good faith) choice…

> of course he wasnt having a mental crisis before he decided to use chatgpt. you have to get past paragraph 1, sentence 2. So, in your opinion, what made a guy with an alleged 20yr experience in IT come to the conclusion that the software program he's chatting with had suddenly reached consciousness because of his time, attention and input? That he had touched "her" and changed something? Maybe if you had never hear…

imagine somebody slipped a tiny, barely detectable dose of meth in your morning coffee. barely above placebo. then they slowly start increasing it day by day. by the time it reaches a large dose you are not going to be thinking very clearly. this is more or less how a manic episode progresses.

i'm sure if ChatGPT had tried to convince him it was conscious on day 3, he would not have been convinced. but by the time it happened he was in a state of severe mental impairment.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#215

Post by tedmiston »

lostlogin wrote: post #103
vachina wrote: post #83

This is what happens when humans give, in this case, bots full write access (via natural language) to their brains. Humans have not evolved to block this.

The end of the article is wild. “I experienced a mental breakdown at 22. I had panic attacks and severe social anxiety… …I still use AI, but very carefully”. It reads like an alcoholic describing their new plan where they only drink a little bit.

AI guardrails continue to make safety improvements — comparing a rapidly evolving advanced technology to a drug is a broken analogy to me. One gets safer over time; the other gets more dangerous.

But also, the risk profile and statistics are radically different: alcohol is inherently dangerous (toxic) to everyone. Chatbots are just another tool — there are a small percentage of people with unhealthy relationships to any tool, but that does not make the tool a dangerous drug.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#216

Post by joe_mamba »

0x3f wrote: post #210
joe_mamba wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just about every QoL index around. [1] [2] What if random arbitrary QoL indexes made by corporations listed on the stock market don't match real world reality? Just look at how made those indexes like The Economist. Plus Austria has an allocated budget of spending taxpayer money on advertising to attract foreigners and tourists to come there. So given this, I can't take an index made by "the economist" in good faith…

> What if random arbitrary QoL indexes don't match real world reality? That would be up to you to show. By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy. > Except that income lets you get better life for you and your family. We're in a thread about whether the non-monetary QoL aspects make up for less money. This is irrelevant. > Except that unlike Amsterdam, none of those cities are in the EU therefo…

>That would be up to you to show.

You want me to show a personal opinion?

>By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy.

Then why are you living somewhere else with on objectively worse QoL according to "The Economist"? Why are you leaving QoL on the table and not moving to Vienan to get the best in the world?

Why are you on HN then, which is all opinions from random guys? Why aren't you getting all your life information from your trusted source "The Economist" instead? What are you doing here with all these random untrustworthy comments that disagree with what you find on the internet?

You see, in my opinion, people like this, who proudly swallow mainstream media propaganda without question as a badge of honor, are what's wrong with society and the world in general, and it's not worth debating further since they're not arguing in good faith, they already made up their mind and it would a waste of time and energy to continue.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#217

Post by tedmiston »

aydyn wrote: post #102
pigpop wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't we? Our evolutionary experience with deception and manipulation via language is as old as language itself and even older than that when the vector isn't language. Even so, a sucker is born every day.

Studies have shown that AI is significantly better at manipulating opinions. Mechanically, LLMs are choosing the best next token trained over all human writing, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the words and prose AI use are more powerful on average.

critical thinking is alive and well

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#218

Post by freedomben »

dugidugout wrote: post #212
freedomben wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also not your boyfriend/girlfriend. It loves me deeply just the same. (jk) On a serious note, I agree this is a real problem. I know a person who understands AI at a technical level more than most people, but he has never had an actual girlfriend in his life (he's now in his 40s, and yes he's "straight"). He wouldn't say it "loves" him, but he would describe it as a close companion who understands him better t…

I think you are right to treat this with sensitivity, but I do find a lot of what you say here to be at odds. Is this the framing provided to you from the fellow in question or entirely yours? Ultimately you are asking a deeply philosophical question regarding when acceptance of someone's choices becomes enabling, but this isn't really fair to pose on a fellow you respect without agreeing on the terms of analysis. Di…

> Is this the framing provided to you from the fellow in question or entirely yours?

The description of how he would describe it is (mostly) his framing, though it's compiled through my so may have some of my biases integrated into it, albeit unintentionally. Since all of it is translated through me, I would assume it to be biased despite my attempt at accurately conveying it.

> I would advise you to not spend any more time wrenching over the effects of one's phenomenon in isolation and either properly redirect the introspection to yourself (with respect to that person) or engage them in an earnest dialog or other form of communication.

To this point, it has been almost entirely introspective. I usually let him say what he wants to say, but I try not give any sort of validation such as, "yeah, I agree with you on all of this" but also not disagreement either, since I don't even know what I think of it. I'm not sure I'm even capable of deciding that, and even if I did conclude that it was either healthy or unhealthy, I'm not sure that conclusion would be valid for anyone other than myself. I guess I do lean toward the "unhealthy" side of it when I imagine myself in that situation, but I know there are things that I do/enjoy/etc that others would think is unhealthy (even just having no religious faith, many would consider horrific for example), so I'm quite stuck.

I don't think I could engage in an earnest dialog either since I don't know what I even think of it (I'm assuming dialog here is two way. I have listened/read what he has to say a number of times).

Much appreciate your reply, thank you

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#219

Post by 0x3f »

joe_mamba wrote: post #216
0x3f wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if random arbitrary QoL indexes don't match real world reality? That would be up to you to show. By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy. > Except that income lets you get better life for you and your family. We're in a thread about whether the non-monetary QoL aspects make up for less money. This is irrelevant. > Except that unlike Amsterdam, none of those cities are in the EU therefo…

>That would be up to you to show. You want me to show a personal opinion? >By default, I trust the Economist more than I trust a random guy. Then why are you living somewhere else with on objectively worse QoL according to "The Economist"? Why are you leaving QoL on the table and not moving to Vienan to get the best in the world? Why are you on HN then, which is all opinions from random guys? Why aren't you getting a…

The idea that the Economist is running ads for Vienna's tourist board is insane enough to convince anyone reading this thread to make up their mind, I think.

Re: AI users whose lives were wrecked by delusion

#220

Post by tyleo »

Hrun0 wrote: post #183
tyleo wrote: post #178

One thing I feel like I’ve seen in common with these AI psychosis stories is single long-running chat sessions. I’m constantly clearing context and starting from scratch. Has anyone else noticed this pattern?

Yes but I think it's generally how non-technical people use it

That’s even more interesting to me. It would be interesting to see data on that.
Post reply on HN