Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
how could you possibly label an experience accurately without having experienced it yourself ?
[flagged]
Chatbot Psychosis
31–40 of 40 posts
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you be shocked? People talk about these things like they’re some kind of oracle. It’s pretty obvious that an “oracle” which gives somewhat random answers is dangerous.
The fact that a technology being used by literally billions of people has a wikipedia page listing only 15 related deaths does not seem to suggest that the technology is dangerous.
I remember seeing people make similar arguments in the early days of OxyContin’s takeover.
The length of the Wikipedia article at this point isn’t good evidence of either side.
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#33They missed an opportunity to call this "cyber psychosis"
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#34given secret service is capable of reading thoughts - channeling delusions ain't that much of a far stretch
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#35This isn't psychosis, this is a cult. It's new age religious beliefs, wrapped up in tech. These people aren't any different than people who believe in speaking in tongues, or transubstantiation.
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
how could you possibly label an experience accurately without having experienced it yourself ?
[flagged]
i think you meant this to be some sort of gotcha , seems your statement aligns with my personal view that literally nobody has any clue what's really going on behind the scenes , so there very well could be a flying spaghetti monster pulling the strings for all we know
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't wish to debate the accuracy of your experience , however i will challenge it a bit - perhaps all psychotics believe they are on a higher plane of thinking , this does not imply that all those on a higher plane of thinking are psychotics
Fair point, but unless I’m misunderstanding something, that same argument could be applied to your original statement.
i dont think either of us properly understood the other , perhaps we shall finish this discussion properly another time , all the best until then
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you be shocked? People talk about these things like they’re some kind of oracle. It’s pretty obvious that an “oracle” which gives somewhat random answers is dangerous.
The fact that a technology being used by literally billions of people has a wikipedia page listing only 15 related deaths does not seem to suggest that the technology is dangerous.
15 that we know of, so far. People outside the HN crowd just started using AI pretty recently. There’s also a case to be made that the increased pollution has a certain death toll as well. We know that fossil fuels, construction, manufacturing, and even noise all produce pollution that reduce the average lifespan in a given area. Some of these data centers are being run off gas turbines which are very dirty.
Re: Chatbot Psychosis
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
i think you meant this to be some sort of gotcha , seems your statement aligns with my personal view that literally nobody has any clue what's really going on behind the scenes , so there very well could be a flying spaghetti monster pulling the strings for all we know
[dead]