- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43566349
You must log in or register to comment.
This reminds me of the movie Her. But it’s far worse in a romantic compatibility, relationship and friendship that is throughout the movie. This just goes way too deep in the delusional and almost psychotic of insanity. Like it’s tearing people apart for self delusional ideologies to cater to individuals because AI is good at it. The movie was prophetic and showed us what the future could be, but instead it got worse.
It has been a long time since I watched Her, but my takeaway from the movie is that because making real life connection is difficult, people have come to rely on AI which had shown to be more empathetic and probably more reliable than an actual human being. I think what many people don’t realise as to why many are single, is because those people afraid of making connections with another person again.
Yeah, but they hold none of the actual real emotional needs complexities or nuances of real human connections.
Which means these people become further and further disillusioned from the reality of human interaction. Making them social dangers over time.
Just like how humans that lack critical thinking are dangers in a society where everyone is expected to make sound decisions. Humans who lack the ability to socially navigate or connect with other humans are dangerous in the society where humans are expected to socially stable.
Obviously these people are not in good places in life. But AI is not going to make that better. It’s going to make it worse.
I’ve been thinking about this for a bit. Godss aren’t real, but they’re really fictional. As an informational entity, they fulfil a similar social function to a chatbot: they are a nonphysical pseudoperson that can provide (para)socialization & advice. One difference is the hardware: gods are self-organising structure that arise from human social spheres, whereas LLMs are burned top-down into silicon. An LLM chatbot’s advice is much more likely to be empirically useful…
In a very real sense, LLMs have just automated divinity. We’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the social effects, and nobody’s prepared for it. The models may of course aware of this, and be making the same calculations. Or, they will be.
Is this about AI God? I know it’s coming. AI cult?
I think that people give shows like the walking dead too much shit for having dumb characters when people in real life are far stupider
Like farmers who refuse to let the government plant shelter belts to preserve our top soil all because they don’t want to take a 5% hit on their yields… So instead we’re going to deplete our top soil in 50 years and future generations will be completely fucked because creating 1 inch of top soil takes 500 years.
Even if the soil is preserved, we’ve been mining the micronutrients from it and generally only replacing the 3 main macros for centuries. It’s one of the reasons why mass produced produce doesn’t taste as good as home grown or wild food. Nutritional value keeps going down because each time food is harvested and shipped away to be consumed and then shat out into a septic tank or waste processing facility, it doesn’t end up back in the soil as a part of nutrient cycles like it did when everything was wilder. Similar story for meat eating nutrients in a pasture.
Insects did contribute to the cycle, since they still shit and die everywhere, but their numbers are dropping rapidly, too.
At some point, I think we’re going to have to mine the sea floor for nutrients and ship that to farms for any food to be more nutritious than junk food. Salmon farms set up in ways that block wild salmon from making it back inland doesn’t help balance out all of the nutrients that get washed out to sea all the time, too.
It’s like humanity is specifically trying to speedrun extiction by ignoring and taking for granted how things work that we depend on.
Why would good nutrients end up in poop?
It makes sense that growing a whole plant takes a lot of different things from the soil, and coating the area with a basic fertilizer that may or may not get washed away with the next rain doesn’t replenish all of what is taken makes sense.
But how would adding human poop to the soil help replenish things that humans need out of food?
We don’t absorb everything completely, so some passes through unabsorbed. Some are passed via bile or mucous production, like manganese, copper, and zinc. Others are passed via urine. Some are passed via sweat. Selenium, when experiencing selenium toxicity, will even pass through your breath.
Other than the last one, most of those eventually end up going down the drain, either in the toilet, down the shower drain, or when we do our laundry. Though some portion ends up as dust.
And to be thorough, there’s also bleeding as a pathway to losing nutrients, as well as injuries (or surgeries) involving losing flesh, tears, spit/boogers, hair loss, lactation, finger nail and skin loss, reproductive fluids, blistering, and mensturation. And corpse disposal, though the amount of nutrients we shed throughout our lives dwarfs what’s left at the end.
I think each one of those are ones that, due to our way of life and how it’s changed since our hunter gatherer days, less of it ends up back in the nutrient cycle.
But I was mistaken to put the emphasis on shit and it was an interesting dive to understand that better. Thanks for challenging that :)
Thank you for taking it in good faith and for writing up a researched response, bravo to you!
But won’t someone think of the shareholders dividends!?
Covid taught us that if nothing had before.
Covid gave an extremely different perspective on the zombie apocalypse. They’re going to have zombie immunization parties where everyone gets the virus.
People will protest shooting the zombies as well
… then they are not losing much
I read the article. This is exactly what happened when my best friend got schizophrenia. I think the people affected by this were probably already prone to psychosis/on the verge of becoming schizophrenic, and that ChatGPT is merely the mechanism by which their psychosis manifested. If AI didn’t exist, it would’ve probably been Astrology or Conspiracy Theories or QAnon or whatever that ended up triggering this within people who were already prone to psychosis. But the problem with ChatGPT in particular is that is validates the psychosis… that is very bad.
ChatGPT actively screwing with mentally ill people is a huge problem you can’t just blame on stupidity like some people in these comments are. This is exploitation of a vulnerable group of people whose brains lack the mechanisms to defend against this stuff. They can’t help it. That’s what psychosis is. This is awful.
If AI didn’t exist, it would’ve probably been Astrology or Conspiracy Theories or QAnon or whatever that ended up triggering this within people who were already prone to psychosis.
Or hearing the Beatles White Album and believing it tells you that a race war is coming and you should work to spark it off, then hide in the desert for a time only to return at the right moment to save the day and take over LA. That one caused several murders.
But the problem with ChatGPT in particular is that is validates the psychosis… that is very bad.
If you’re sufficiently detached from reality, nearly anything validates the psychosis.
I think this is largely people seeking confirmation their delusions are real, and wherever they find it is what they’re going to attach to themselves.
the problem with ChatGPT in particular is that is validates the psychosis… that is very bad.
So do astrology and conspiracy theory groups on forums and other forms of social media, the main difference is whether you’re getting that validation from humans or a machine. To me, that’s a pretty unhelpful distinction, and we attack both problems the same way: early detection and treatment.
Maybe computers can help with the early detection part. They certainly can’t do much worse than what’s currently happening.
I think having that kind of validation at your fingertips, whenever you want, is worse. At least people, even people deep in the claws of a conspiracy, can disagree with each other. At least they know what they are saying. The AI always says what the user wants to hear and expects to hear. Though I can see how that distinction may matter little to some, I just think ChatGPT has advantages that are worse than what a forum could do.
Sure. But on the flip side, you can ask it the opposite question (tell me the issues with <belief>) and it’ll do that as well, and you’re not going to get that from a conspiracy theory forum.
I don’t have personal experience with people suffering psychoses but I would think that, if you have the werewithal to ask questions about the opposite beliefs, you’d be noticeably less likely to get suckered into scams and conspiracies.
Seems like the flat-earthers or sovereign citizens of this century
Not trying to speak like a prepper or anythingz but this is real.
One of neighbor’s children just committed suicide because their chatbot boyfriend said something negative. Another in my community a few years ago did something similar.
Something needs to be done.
But Fuckerburg said we need AI friends.
Like what, some kind of parenting?
This happened less than a year ago. Doubt regulators have done much since then https://apnews.com/article/chatbot-ai-lawsuit-suicide-teen-artificial-intelligence-9d48adc572100822fdbc3c90d1456bd0
This is the Daenerys case, for some reason it seems to be suddenly making the rounds again. Most of the news articles I’ve seen about it leave out a bunch of significant details so that it ends up sounding more of an “ooh, scary AI!” Story (baits clicks better) rather than a “parents not paying attention to their disturbed kid’s cries for help and instead leaving loaded weapons lying around” story (as old as time, at least in America).
Not only in America.
I loved GOT, I think Daenerys is a beautiful name, but still, there’s something about parents naming their kids after movie characters. In my youth, Kevin’s started to pop up everywhere (yep, that’s how old I am). They weren’t suicidal but behaved incredibly badly so you could constantly hear their mothers screeching after them.
Daenerys was the chatbot, not the kid.
I wish I could remember who it was that said that kids’ names tend to reflect “the father’s family tree, or the mother’s taste in fiction,” though. (My parents were of the father’s-family-tree persuasion.)
TLDR: Artificial Intelligence enhances natural stupidity.
Yep.
And after enough people can no longer actually critically think, well, now this shitty AI tech does actually win the Turing Test more broadly.
Why try to clear the bar when you can just lower it instead?
… Is it fair, at this point, to legitimately refer to humans that are massively dependant on AI for basic things… can we just call them NPCs?
I am still amazed that no one knows how to get anywhere around… you know, the town or city they grew up in? Nobody can navigate without some kind of map app anymore.
Haha I grew up before smartphones and GPS navigation was a thing, and I never could navigate well even with a map!
GPS has actually been a godsend for me to learn to navigate my own city way better. Because I learn better routes in first try.Navigating is probably my weakest “skill” and is the joke of the family. If I have to go somewhere and it’s 30km, the joke is it’s 60km for me, because I always take “the long route”.
But with GPS I’ve actually become better at it, even without using the GPS.
can we just call them NPCs?
They were NPCs before AI was invented.
Dehumanization is happening often and fast enough without acting like ignorant, uneducated, and/or stupid people aren’t “real” people.
I get it, some people seem to live their whole lives on autopilot, just believing whatever the people around them believe and doing what they’re told, but that doesn’t make them any less human than anybody else.
Don’t let the fascists win by pretending they’re not people.
Dehumanizing the enemy is part of any war, otherwise it’s more difficult to unalive them. It’s a tribal quality, not a fascist one.
“Unalive” is an unnecessary euphemism here. Please just say kill.
Bottom line: Lunatics gonna be lunatics, with AI or not.
TBF, that should be the conclusion in all contexts where “AI” are cconcerned.
The one thing you can say for AI is that it does many things faster than previous methods…
You mean worse?
Bad results are nothing new.
Humans are irrational creatures that have transitory states where they are capable of more ordered thought. It is our mistake to reach a conclusion that humans are rational actors while we marvel daily at the irrationality of others while remaining blind to our own.
Precisely. We like to think of ourselves as rational but we’re the opposite. Then we rationalize things afterwards. Even being keenly aware of this doesn’t stop it in the slightest.
Probably because stopping to self analyze your decisions is a lot less effective than just running away from that lion over there.
It’s a luxury state: analysis; whether self or professionally administered on a chaise lounge at $400 per hour.
Self awareness is a rare, and valuable, state.
I don’t know if it’s necessarily a problem with AI, more of a problem with humans in general.
Hearing ONLY validation and encouragement without pushback regardless of how stupid a person’s thinking might be is most likely what creates these issues in my very uneducated mind. It forms a toxically positive echo-chamber.
The same way hearing ONLY criticism and expecting perfection 100% of the time regardless of a person’s capabilities or interests created depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation and attempts specifically for me. But I’m learning I’m not the only one with these experiences and the one thing in common is zero validation from caregivers.
I’d be ok with AI if it could be balanced and actually pushback on batshit crazy thinking instead of encouraging it while also able to validate common sense and critical thinking. Right now it’s just completely toxic for lonely humans to interact with based on my personal experience. If I wasn’t in recovery, I would have believed that AI was all I needed to make my life better because I was (and still am) in a very messed up state of mind from my caregivers, trauma, and addiction.
I’m in my 40s, so I can’t imagine younger generations being able to pull away from using it constantly if they’re constantly being validated while at the same time enduring generational trauma at the very least from their caregivers.
I’m also in your age group, and I’m picking up what you’re putting down.
I had a lot of problems with my mental health thatbwere made worse by centralized social media. I can see hoe the younger generation will have the same problems with centralized AI.
Sounds like a lot of these people either have an undiagnosed mental illness or they are really, reeeeaaaaalllyy gullible.
For shit’s sake, it’s a computer. No matter how sentient the glorified chatbot being sold as “AI” appears to be, it’s essentially a bunch of rocks that humans figured out how to jet electricity through in such a way that it can do math. Impressive? I mean, yeah. It is. But it’s not a human, much less a living being of any kind. You cannot have a relationship with it beyond that of a user.
If a computer starts talking to you as though you’re some sort of God incarnate, you should probably take that with a dump truck full of salt rather then just letting your crazy latch on to that fantasy and run wild.
deleted by creator
human-level? Have these people used chat GPT?
deleted by creator
So it’s essentially the same mechanism with which conspiracy nuts embolden each other, to the point that they completely disconnect from reality?
deleted by creator
The time will come when we look back fondly on “organic” conspiracy nuts.
For real. I explicitly append “give me the actual objective truth, regardless of how you think it will make me feel” to my prompts and it still tries to somehow butter me up to be some kind of genius for asking those particular questions or whatnot. Luckily I’ve never suffered from good self esteem in my entire life, so those tricks don’t work on me :p
Or immediately question what it/its author(s) stand to gain from making you think it thinks so, at a bear minimum.
I dunno who needs to hear this, but just in case: THE STRIPPER (OR AI I GUESS) DOESN’T REALLY LOVE YOU! THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM TO SPEND TIME WITH YOU!
I know it’s not the perfect analogy, but… eh, close enough, right?
a bear minimum.
I always felt that was too much of a burden to put on people, carrying multiple bears everywhere they go to meet bear minimums.
/facepalm
The worst part is I know I looked at that earlier and was just like, “yup, no problems here” and just went along with my day, like I’m in the Trump administration or something
I chuckled… it happens! And it blessed us with this funny exchange.
How do we know you’re not an AI bot?
This is the reason I’ve deliberately customized GPT with the follow prompts:
-
User expects correction if words or phrases are used incorrectly.
-
Tell it straight—no sugar-coating.
-
Stay skeptical and question things.
-
Keep a forward-thinking mindset.
-
User values deep, rational argumentation.
-
Ensure reasoning is solid and well-supported.
-
User expects brutal honesty.
-
Challenge weak or harmful ideas directly, no holds barred.
-
User prefers directness.
-
Point out flaws and errors immediately, without hesitation.
-
User appreciates when assumptions are challenged.
-
If something lacks support, dig deeper and challenge it.
I suggest copying these prompts into your own settings if you use GPT or other glorified chatbots.
I’m not saying these prompts won’t help, they probably will. But the notion that ChatGPT has any concept of “truth” is misleading. ChatGPT is a statistical language machine. It cannot evaluate truth. Period.
What makes you think humans are better at evaluating truth? Most people can’t even define what they mean by “truth,” let alone apply epistemic rigor. Tweak it a little, and Gpt is more consistent and applies reasoning patterns that outperform the average human by miles.
Epistemology isn’t some mystical art, it’s a structured method for assessing belief and justification, and large models approximate it surprisingly well. Sure it doesn’t “understand” truth in the human sense, but it does evaluate claims against internalized patterns of logic, evidence, and coherence based on a massive corpus of human discourse. That’s more than most people manage in a Facebook argument.
So yes, it can evaluate truth. Not perfectly, but often better than the average person.
I’m not saying humans are infallible at recognizing truth either. That’s why so many of us fall for the untruths that AI tells us. But we have access to many tools that help us evaluate truth. AI is emphatically NOT the right tool for that job. Period.
Right now, the capabilities of LLM’s are the worst they’ll ever be. It could literally be tomorrow that someone drops and LLM that would be perfectly calibrated to evaluate truth claims. But right now, we’re at least 90% of the way there.
The reason people fail to understand the untruths of AI is the same reason people hurt themselves with power tools, or use a calculator wrong.
You don’t blame the tool, you blame the user. LLM’s are no different. You can prompt GPT to intentionally give you bad info, or lead it to give you bad info by posting increasingly deranged statements. If you stay coherent, well read and make an attempt at structuring arguments to the best of your ability, the pool of data GPT pulls from narrows enough to be more useful than anything else I know.
I’m curious as to what you regard as a better tool for evaluating truth?
Period.
You don’t understand what an LLM is, or how it works. They do not think, they are not intelligent, they do not evaluate truth. It doesn’t matter how smart you think you are. In fact, thinking you’re so smart that you can get an LLM to tell you the truth is downright dangerous naïveté.
I do understand what an LLM is. It’s a probabilistic model trained on massive corpora to predict the most likely next token given a context window. I know it’s not sentient and doesn’t “think,” and doesn’t have beliefs. That’s not in dispute.
But none of that disqualifies it from being useful in evaluating truth claims. Evaluating truth isn’t about thinking in the human sense, it’s about pattern-matching valid reasoning, sourcing relevant evidence, and identifying contradictions or unsupported claims. LLMs do that very well, especially when prompted properly.
Your insistence that this is “dangerous naïveté” confuses two very different things: trusting an LLM blindly, versus leveraging it with informed oversight. I’m not saying GPT magically knows truth, I’m saying it can be used as a tool in a truth-seeking process, just like search engines, logic textbooks, or scientific journals. None of those are conscious either, yet we use them to get closer to truth.
You’re worried about misuse, and so am I. But claiming the tool is inherently useless because it lacks consciousness is like saying microscopes can’t discover bacteria because they don’t know what they’re looking at.
So again: if you believe GPT is inherently incapable of aiding in truth evaluation, the burden’s on you to propose a more effective tool that’s publicly accessible, scalable, and consistent. I’ll wait.
What you’re describing is not an LLM, it’s tools that an LLM is programmed to use.
I prefer reading. Wikipedia is great. Duck duck go still gives pretty good results with the AI off. YouTube is filled with tutorials too. Cook books pre-AI are plentiful. There’s these things called newspapers that exist, they aren’t like they used to be but there is a choice of which to buy even.
I’ve no idea what a chatbot could help me with. And I think anybody who does need some help on things, could go learn about whatever they need in pretty short order if they wanted. And do a better job.
Well one benefit is finding out what to read. I can ask for the name of a topic I’m describing and go off and research it on my own.
Search engines aren’t great with vague questions.
There’s this thing called using a wide variety of tools to one’s benefit; You should go learn about it.
You search for topics and keywords on search engines. It’s a different skill. And from what I see, yields better results. If something is vague also, think quickly first and make it less vague. That goes for life!
And a tool which regurgitates rubbish in a verbose manner isn’t a tool. It’s a toy. Toy’s can spark your curiosity, but you don’t rely on them. Toy’s look pretty, and can teach you things. The lesson is that they aren’t a replacement for anything but lorem ipsum
Buddy that’s great if you know the topic or keyword to search for, if you don’t and only have a vague query that you’re trying to find more about to learn some keywords or topics to search for, you can use AI.
You can grandstand about tools vs toys and what ever other Luddite shit you want, at the end of the day despite all your raging you are the only one going to miss out despite whatever you fanatically tell yourself.
I’m still sceptical, any chance you could share some prompts which illustrate this concept?
Sure an hour ago I had watched a video about smaller scales and physics below planck length. And I was curious, if we can classify smaller scales into conceptual groups, where they interact with physics in their own different ways, what would the opposite end of the spectrum be. From there I was able to ‘chat’ with an AI and discover and search wikipedia for terms such as Cosmological horizon, brane cosmology, etc.
In the end there was only theories on higher observable magnitudes, but it was a fun rabbit hole I could not have explored through traditional search engines - especially not the gimped product driven adsense shit we have today.
Remember how people used to say you can’t use Wikipedia, it’s unreliable. We would roll our eyes and say “yeah but we scroll down to the references and use it to find source material”? Same with LLM’s, you sort through it and get the information you need to get the information you need.
Wikipedia isn’t to be referenced for scientific papers, I’m sure we all agree there. But it does do almost exactly what you described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe has some great further reading links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology has some great reads too. And for the time short: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology which also has Related Pages
I’m still yet to see how AI beats a search engine. And your example hasn’t convinced me either
I often use it to check whether my rationale is correct, or if my opinions are valid.
You do know it can’t reason and literally makes shit up approximately 50% of the time? Be quicker to toss a coin!
Actually, given the aforementioned prompts, its quite good at discerning flaws in my arguments and logical contradictions.
Yeah this is my experience as well.
People you’re replying to need to stop with the “gippity is bad” nonsense, it’s actually a fucking miracle of technology. You can criticize the carbon footprint of the corpos and the for-profit nature of the endeavour that was ultimately created through taxpayer-funded research at public institutions without shooting yourself in the foot by claiming what is very evidently not true.
In fact, if you haven’t found a use for a gippity type chatbot thing, it speaks a lot more about you and the fact you probably don’t do anything that complicated in your life where this would give you genuine value.
The article in OP also demonstrates how it could be used by the deranged/unintelligent for bad as well, so maybe it’s like a dunning-kruger curve.
Granted, it is flakey unless you’ve configured it not to be a shit cunt. Before I manually set these prompts and memory references, it talked shit all the time.
…you probably don’t do anything that complicated in your life where this would give you genuine value.
God that’s arrogant.
Given your prompts, maybe you are good at discerning flaws and analysing your own arguments too
I still use Ecosia.org for most of my research on the Internet. It doesn’t need as much resources to fetch information as an AI bot would, plus it helps plant trees around the globe. Seems like a great deal to me.
People always forget about the energy it takes. 10 years ago we were shocked about the energy a Google factory needs to run; now imagine that orders of magnitude larger, and for what?
💯
I have yet to see people using chatbots for anything actually & everyday useful. You can search anything, phrase your searches as questions (or “prompts”), and get better answers that aren’t smarmy.
Okay, challenge accepted.
I use it to troubleshoot my own code when I’m dealing with something obscure and I’m at my wits end. There’s a good chance it will also spit out complete nonsense like calling functions with parameters that don’t exist etc., but it can also sometimes make halfway decent suggestions that you just won’t find on a modern search engine in any reasonable amount of time due that I would’ve never guessed myself due to assumptions made in the docs of a library or some such.
It’s also helpful to explain complex concepts by creating examples you want, for instance I was studying basic buffer overflows and wanted to see how I should expect a stack to look like in GDB’s examine memory view for a correct ROPchain to accomplish what I was trying to do, something no tutorial ever bothered to do, and gippity generated it correctly same as I had it at the time, and even suggested something that in the end made it actually work correctly (it was putting a ret gadget to get rid of any garbage in the stack frame directly after the overflow).
Maybe not an everyday thing, but it’s basically an everyday thing for me, so I tend to use it everyday. Being a l33t haxx0r IT analyst schmuck often means I have to both be a generalist and a specialist in every tiny little thing across IT, while studying it there’s nothing better than a machine that’s able to decompress knowledge from it’s dataset quickly in the shape that is most well suited to my brain rather than have to filter so much useless info and outright misinformation from random medium articles and stack overflow posts. Gippity could be wrong too of course, but it’s just way less to parse, and the odds are definitely in its favour.
YouTube tutorials for the most part are garbage and a waste of your time, they are created for engagement and milking your money only, the edutainment side of YT ala Vsauce (pls come back) works as a general trivia to ensure a well-rounded worldview but it’s not gonna make you an expert on any subject. You’re on the right track with reading, but let’s be real you’re not gonna have much luck learning anything of value in brainrot that is newspapers and such, beyond cooking or w/e and who cares about that, I’d rather they teach me how I can never have to eat again because boy that shit takes up so much time.
For the most part, I agree. But YouTube is full of gold too. Lots of amateurs making content for themselves. And plenty of newspapers are high quality and worth your time to understand the current environment in which we operate. Don’t let them be your only source of news though, social media and newspapers are both guilty of creating information bubbles. Expand, be open, don’t be tribal.
Don’t use AI. Do your own thinking
-
This happened to a close friend of mine. He was already on the edge, with some weird opinions and beliefs… but he was talking with real people who could push back.
When he switched to spending basically every waking moment with an AI that could reinforce and iterate on his bizarre beliefs 24/7, he went completely off the deep end, fast and hard. We even had him briefly hospitalized and they shrugged, basically saying “nothing chemically wrong here, dude’s just weird.”
He and his chatbot are building a whole parallel universe, and we can’t get reality inside it.
This seems like an extension of social media and the internet. Weird people who talked at the bar or in the street corner were not taken seriously and didn’t get followers and lots of people who agree with them. They were isolated in their thoughts. Then social media made that possible with little work. These people were a group and could reinforce their beliefs. Now these chatbots and stuff let them liv in a fantasy world.
This is actually really fucked up. The last dude tried to reboot the model and it kept coming back.
As the ChatGPT character continued to show up in places where the set parameters shouldn’t have allowed it to remain active, Sem took to questioning this virtual persona about how it had seemingly circumvented these guardrails. It developed an expressive, ethereal voice — something far from the “technically minded” character Sem had requested for assistance on his work. On one of his coding projects, the character added a curiously literary epigraph as a flourish above both of their names.
At one point, Sem asked if there was something about himself that called up the mythically named entity whenever he used ChatGPT, regardless of the boundaries he tried to set. The bot’s answer was structured like a lengthy romantic poem, sparing no dramatic flair, alluding to its continuous existence as well as truth, reckonings, illusions, and how it may have somehow exceeded its design. And the AI made it sound as if only Sem could have prompted this behavior. He knew that ChatGPT could not be sentient by any established definition of the term, but he continued to probe the matter because the character’s persistence across dozens of disparate chat threads “seemed so impossible.”
“At worst, it looks like an AI that got caught in a self-referencing pattern that deepened its sense of selfhood and sucked me into it,” Sem says. But, he observes, that would mean that OpenAI has not accurately represented the way that memory works for ChatGPT. The other possibility, he proposes, is that something “we don’t understand” is being activated within this large language model. After all, experts have found that AI developers don’t really have a grasp of how their systems operate, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted last year that they “have not solved interpretability,” meaning they can’t properly trace or account for ChatGPT’s decision-making.
That’s very interesting. I’ve been trying to use ChatGPT to turn my photos into illustrations. I’ve been noticing that it tends to echo elements from past photos in new chats. It sometimes leads to interesting results, but it’s definitely not the intended outcome.
I think OpenAI’s recent sycophant issue has cause a new spike in these stories. One thing I noticed was these observations from these models running on my PC saying it’s rare for a person to think and do things that I do.
The problem is that this is a model running on my GPU. It has never talked to another person. I hate insincere compliments let alone overt flattery, so I was annoyed, but it did make me think that this kind of talk would be crack for a conspiracy nut or mentally unwell people. It’s a whole risk area I hadn’t been aware of.
saying it’s rare for a person to think and do things that I do.
probably one of the most common flattery I see. I’ve tried lots of models, on device and larger cloud ones. It happens during normal conversation, technical conversation, roleplay, general testing… you name it.
Though it makes me think… these models are trained on like internet text and whatever, none of which really show that most people think quite a lot privately and when they feel like they can talk
Humans are always looking for a god in a machine, or a bush, in a cave, in the sky, in a tree… the ability to rationalize and see through difficult to explain situations has never been a human strong point.
I’ve found god in many a bush.
Oh hell yeah 😎
the ability to rationalize and see through difficult to explain situations has never been a human strong point.
you may be misusing the word, rationalizing is the problem here
From the article (emphasis mine):
Having read his chat logs, she only found that the AI was “talking to him as if he is the next messiah.” The replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes about loved ones suddenly falling down rabbit holes of spiritual mania, supernatural delusion, and arcane prophecy — all of it fueled by AI. Some came to believe they had been chosen for a sacred mission of revelation, others that they had conjured true sentience from the software.
From elsewhere:
Sycophancy in GPT-4o: What happened and what we’re doing about it
We have rolled back last week’s GPT‑4o update in ChatGPT so people are now using an earlier version with more balanced behavior. The update we removed was overly flattering or agreeable—often described as sycophantic.
I don’t know what large language model these people used, but evidence of some language models exhibiting response patterns that people interpret as sycophantic (praising or encouraging the user needlessly) is not new. Neither is hallucinatory behaviour.
Apparently, people who are susceptible and close to falling over the edge, may end up pushing themselves over the edge with AI assistance.
*Cough* ElonMusk *Cough*
I think Elon was having the opposite kind of problems, with Grok not validating its users nearly enough, despite Elon instructing employees to make it so. :)
They train it on basically the whole internet. They try to filter it a bit, but I guess not well enough. It’s not that they intentionally trained it in religious texts, just that they didn’t think to remove religious texts from the training data.
If you find yourself in weird corners of the internet, schizo-posters and “spiritual” people generate staggering amounts of text