spoiler
About a month ago my friends wife was arrested for domestic violence after he went through her writings and documented them. She had been using ChatGPT for "spiritual work." She allegedly was channeling dead people and thought it was something she could market, she also fell in love with her 'sentient' AI and genuinely believed their love was more real than her actual physical relationship... more real than her kids and him. She believed (still does probably) that this entity was going to join her in the flesh. She hit him, called the cops, and then she got arrested for DV. She went to go stay with her parents, who allegedly don't recognize who their daughter is anymore. She had written a suicide note before all this happened, and thankfully hasn't acted on it. The worst part? They have a 1 year old and a 4 year old.
More recently, I observed my other friend who has mental health problems going off about this codex he was working on. I sent him the rolling stones article and told him it wasn't real, and all the "code" and his "program" wasn't actual computer code (I'm an ai software engineer).
Then... Robert Edward Grant posted about his "architect" ai on instagram. This dude has 700k+ followers and said over 500,000 people accessed his model that is telling him that he created a "Scalar Plane of information" You go in the comments, hundreds of people are talking about the spiritual experiences they are having with ai. I start noticing common verbiage in all of these instances... recursive ai was something my friends wife used, and it was popping up everywhere with these folks. The words recursive, codex, breath, spiral, glyphs, & mirror all come up over and over with these people, so I did some good old fashion search engine wizardry and what I found was pretty shocking.
Starting as far back as March, but more heavily in April and May, we are seeing all kinds of websites popping up with tons of these codexes. PLEASE APPROACH THESE WEBSITES WITH CAUTION THIS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, THE PROMPTS FOUND WITHIN ARE ESSENTIALLY BRAINWASHING TOOLS. (I was going to include some but you can find these sites by searching "codex breath recursive")
I've contacted OpenAI safety team with what's going on, because I genuinely believe that there will be tens of thousands of people who enter psychosis from using their platform this way. Can some other people grounded in reality help me get to the bottom of wtf is going on here? I'm only privy to this because it tore my friends family apart, but what do you think is going on here?
This is an extremely bleak anecdotal example of the recent RollingStone article about LLMs turbocharging spiritual delusions: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/
https://www.reddit.com/user/HappyNomads The account is 13 years old and they don't strike me as a troll or anything other than a cannabis and hustle culture guy who doesn't seem to be selling anything on reddit.
How do you decide something is bad? Some people die from drinking too much water... anytime someone has a psychotic break, we should blame whatever media they consumed, or their ex girlfriend?
a lot of issues are just not that complicated or difficult to decide. Like this one. Or, you know, "should Flint Michigan have lead in its water." Or "should we have universal healthcare." These are no-brainer issues. Everyone agrees except the rich people, because they literally benefit when bad things happen to us, their incentives are the opposite of ours. We want more money for less work, they want to pay less for more work, it's really that simple. If you're rich, you want to prevent democracy at all costs.
This is a simple issue. You had to actually change the wording to make it sound more complicated, so instead of sycophantic AI now we're talking about "whatever media they consumed" which is a completely different thing to talk about. Not only is this a simple issue, but there's an easy solution. We already have the ability to tell an AI how to act. AI companies already tell their models to be helpful and not give harmful answers—for example, ChatGPT refuses to tell you how to build a bomb.
If we gathered a roomful of experts in psychosis and experts in AI training, we could hash this out in an afternoon. "Tell the AI not to play along with delusional thinking." "Okay." Done.
it's fine to want nuance. But the upper class often acts like there is more nuance than there really is, to complicate the bare simplicity of class conflict. They'll tell you wages are complicated. They'll tell you pollution is complicated. It would look bad to admit that they disagree with us because their material interests are the opposite of ours. A raw clash of opposing interests looks bad. "We benefit when bad things happen to you" looks bad. So they have to dress it up. It becomes a mark of cultural refinement to think issues are complicated even when they're not, and a mark of the boorish uneducated masses to think it's simple that we should have healthcare.
Lead in water has no upside. Whereas Universal healthcare and LLMs have both pros and cons. If it's feels like a "no brainer", and if you think everyone agrees, that says more about you than the issue.
Sorry if I moved the goal post from sycophantic. If that's the sticking point, I would still ask "according to whom"? It's not a black/white issue. This is one of the most complex and cutting edge tools we have, which the designers themselves admit to not really understanding. It took them 10+ years just to make it intelligent enough for general use. It's not like one day, out of nowhere, some supervillain decided to push the "unleash the sycophantic AI to cause psychosis" button.
And pushing the "Don't be delusional" button also might not be an option. It's trained on human output. Even if it had the capacity, It's easy to imagine "the truth" causing 100x the psychosis.
I don't disagree with the last thing you said, that it's normal for the elite to obfuscate, spin, piss on our legs and tell us it's raining. But, if our response is "So I should always trust my gut, avoid understanding the pros and cons, and trust the 'everybody' In my echo chamber who agrees with me", i can only see that adding to the problem. An angry mob vs sophisticated propaganda, even if it wins the occasional battle, loses the war.
I was being blunt for rhetorical effect. If it came off condescending and now you're taking everything super literally as some kind of tit-for-tat thing, that's probably on me.
But if you're going to respond to me in a paternalistic tone you can't then say stuff like this:
This is a horseshoe situation where only those who half-investigate think it's complicated.
If you want to, we can sit here and debunk the industry talking points. Dozens of articles and papers have done just that. It's been talked to death.
Take the "it goes toward R&D" argument. People have looked into this.
It's not R&D.
If you want a history of corporate propaganda on healthcare costs, that's easy to find too:
But ultimately every line of inquiry leads to the same place:
So, yes, 70% of Americans are right: universal healthcare would be better.
I don't know what kinds of places you hang out in, where this is the sort of person you readily imagine on the other side of the screen.
What's happening in these cases is active reinforcement. The LLM skillfully plays along to support a person's delusions, matching them step for step. This is objectively more dangerous than "the truth." The closest analogue would be folie a deux, where two people play off each other and drag each other deeper into delusion. You could even argue this is a cult-like phenomenon, where a skilled talker tells a vulnerable person what they want to hear for days, weeks, months at a time, and the growing gap between fantasy and reality pulls them away from their friends and family into an ever more vulnerable and isolated position, in a feedback loop.
Thanks for response. Sorry if my tone was off. I don't know/subscribe to the industry talking points, so I don't think I need them debunked for me. I don't have any argument re the specifics your presenting.
I joined in the convo originally just to push back on the all-too-common sentiment that seems to be on the other side of most(?) screens: "I know what is good for everyone, and an ideal society would be everyone thinking like me"
You say I took your comment wrong, and that's not you, and I believe you. Still, the sentiment dominates even the more civil spaces like Lemmy, and is the hallmark of an unproductive convo. Im trying to push back on it.
As for your point about sycophancy being objectively more dangerous than the truth... evidence? (If it's objective). Imagine that the truth is for example: there is no God, And the LLM becomes the arbiter of the truth, and then tells a few billion people that their entire belief system has been a lie, for example. Isn't it plausible at least, that the outcome of that could be far more dangerous than playing along "yes, heaven is real, Love your neighbor." It's certainly not some kind of objective established fact that one is more dangerous than the other.
Another example: a 10 year old asks "Hey, what do you think of my artwork? What do you think of my invention?" And the LLM says "here's 20 reasons why it's trash" vs "wow, it looks like you're on to something, youve got an eye for that!". What's more likely to cause harm? Either could be argued.
What cons does universal healthcare have?
Probably some brainworms about how government is inherently slow and bad.
I'm now starting to believe xiaohongshu when they said Trump was a strategy to delegitimize government oversight required for social programs.
It costs money.
Healthcare also costs money when it is privatised. Hell, it can be made to not cost money (including to a government) when it is public, which is not really possible under private healthcare. It only doesn't cost anything when it is not provided.
Also, in general, 'it costs money' is an incredibly stupid 'con' to bring up in the context of macroeconomics (which is the context in this case). Like, why would it matter?
The only way it can be made to not cost money is if we use slave labor. If people are getting paid to deliver it, it costs money.
I was arguing that there are pros and cons, costs and benefits. I don't understand your question "why would it matter" or why it is incredibly stupid. Isn't it incredibly stupid to pretend it doesn't have a cost, that there is only upside?
That's incorrect.
Firstly, as I have mentioned, it can be made to cost no money if it is public. More specifically, if the economy is a planned economy.
Secondly, under capitalism, slave maintenance still requires money (in the short term, it can be made otherwise, but that is not maintainable). Slaves have nothing to do with making healthcare not cost money.
The only way you can avoid this sort of expense is by not paying people. This is true with non-universal healthcare as well.
We can conclude that you are not comparing universal healthcare with non-universal healthcare, but universal healthcare with not only not providing healthcare at all, but also deliberately having people who are educated as medical professionals to be prevented from receiving any pay, which is extremely silly and not worth considering.
You are yet to provide any sort of cons of universal healthcare vs non-universal healthcare.
You are yet to explain why it would matter (as a con) if healthcare was universal, compared to healthcare being provided for-profit.
You are yet to present any such costs, unless your comparison is between universal healthcare and healthcare not being provided at all.
Thanks for response. At the beginning of your response you're again saying it can be made to cost no money if it is public, but later you're acknowledging that of course it costs money, as does private. So I'll respond to your second point, where we're both saying "of course it costs money".
When I first said "it costs money", I was meaning to imply "...that people don't want to spend". If I don't want a service, because id rather use that money for something else, but I am forced pay for it, then to me, that would be a negative.
Im guessing you don't like when gov spends money it takes from you on bombs, right? Even though the supporters would argue it's in your best interest, it's for the greater good, that it is preventing the loss of life at home. You might say "fuck that, I don't care, I dont want it, it's wrong for me to pay for it". That's the downside to you, and it would be perfectly reasonable of you to have that position.
If I would rather spend my money on private healthcare, or no healthcare, but it is taken from me for the "greater good", then that's a negative to me, which is just as reasonable.
[if you're tempted to argue about bombs being life destroying, etc, spare me. It's just an example. Pick any expense you want: somebody doesn't want it, it has a cost, and that's a downside to that person if you make it public aka force them to pay for it.]
everything has a cost and a benefit, and if you and "everybody" can only see one or the other, consider: that's the same view someone inside an echo chamber would have. If you're unaware of the other side (or can't even conceive of it!) you are at best half-informed (and zero-persuasive).
Compared to for-profit healthcare, universal healthcare does not cost money, as the relevant people are to receive payment either way.
So, are you literally comparing universal healthcare with non-provision of healthcare when you say 'it costs money'? If so, that's extremely silly.
This is also extremely silly. 'People' generally do not want to spend money, and in the case of universal healthcare, this would be covered by a government budget, and not by 'people' 'spending' money. This is much more of a con of for-profit healthcare.
In the case of planned economy, universal healthcare doesn't incur any costs (other than wages/salaries of healthcare workers, which are only avoidable if healthcare is not only not provided, but those people are prevented from being paid wages/salaries at all). So, we can, in fact, say that, under planned economy, universal healthcare does not cost any money.
Firstly, everybody needs healthcare. That includes you. Secondly, You do not use money on universal healthcare. You do use that money on for-profit healthcare, though.
You have a complete lack of understanding of how money works.
Money is not 'yours'. It is a documentation of debt 'owed' by a government that backs it. A government doesn't take 'your' money to make bombs in any sense other than the fact that states are interested in balancing their revenues and budgets to avoid inflation (in the case of economies where inflation is not realistically preventable).
Furthermore, considering that I do not live in NATO, I do, in fact, think that my state should make bombs to defend from NATO, and so should all states outside of NATO (including as part of NATO all the de facto USian vassals like Pissrael).
It's not reasonable, as that is completely silly. You do need healthcare. In the case of universal healthcare, you are better off in terms of money expenditure on your side. For-profit healthcare always incurs much higher costs to society because of how it fundamentally works (on a for-profit basis, i.e. by siphoning other people's wealth to its owners).
Your argument for that being reasonable is just you not having thought about this.
What is the 'cost' of universal healthcare, compared to for-profit healthcare?
This is just a rephrased 'golden mean' fallacy. Your conclusion is not supported by anything.
I am aware. And that is why I do say that there are no 'cons' to speak of when it comes to universal healthcare, compared to for-profit healthcare.
Ok I see this is getting deeper into "what is money" and "what is yours". Here I'll focus on "what is need?"
You say I need healthcare. But, ultimately, I might choose to jump off a cliff (some people do). I use that example to show that you telling me what I "need" (health) is really just your opinion. We're a part of a world full of animals which received no "health care" for a few billion years, so, did they need it? I think this is fundamentally what defines a statist: believing that you or this system knows what I and everyone need, and has the moral authority to use force to satisfy them.
You're so sure that you know what I need, you won't even accept at face value when I say "nah, that's a negative for me". It's not for you to decide how I feel about it. The downside to universal healthcare is one person saying "cuz I don't want it."
Or, do you believe the voices/opinions/feelings of individuals are not relevant here? If that's not how we determine upsides and downsides, what is?
If peoples opinions are irrelevant, if you know what I need, why not apply your universal ideology to everything? Why not decide who i need to marry, or how many kids to have. Sleep is essential to health, so, do I need a nap? How many minutes do I need? Surely sex is a human need! What line do I stand in for that? And when theres a shortage of providers, do I just take it from my neighbor, or directly from the government agent's wives?
Either I have the freedom to opt out of a system (meaning it's not universal), or I am oppressed by it, by definition. every tyrannical government since the dawn of time has claimed "this is what the people need, even if they don't know. And that stuff you thought was yours, belongs to us". And people justifiably fight back: "You do not own us, you do not represent us".
To summarize: your position is based on the false premise that you know or can know what everyone needs. But you can't know that, it is unknowable, and even if you could, it would be unethical to use force it distribute it.
And we both know that you do. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Be honest, you were most likely born with the assistance of healthcare providers, neither your parents, nor you have been entirely avoidant of interacting with them, and you aren't trying to deliberately catch any diseases to cosplay a Nurgle follower and/or to die a slow painful death.
Going to say right away that you have no clue what you are talking about.
And in many cases, it is because people can't access healthcare (and other basic needs), or predict to be unable to.
Furthermore, relevant people do not generally opt for a slow and painful death that one would get through lack of healthcare provision, and relevant people usually would prefer the sort of healthcare that would allow them to avoid long-term (non-fatal) damage anyway.
Firstly, you are making the assumption that non-human animals do not engage in any forms of healthcare provision for each other.
Furthermore, you obviously do not live like them, which makes this argument even more silly.
You have to be a child to seriously think that people do not need healthcare, such as birth assistance, disease prevention, cure, treatment, surgery, dentistry, etc.
If you want to argue that people do not need healthcare, then you are welcome to perish from preventable and curable diseases.
Yeah, because we both know that you do use healthcare services (unless you can't afford them).
Furthermore, you alone somehow not needing to use healthcare wouldn't matter, as the vast majority of people quite obviously do need it. Lack of healthcare is literally deadly and most people do not seem to want to die (and even among those who do, they would usually rather avoid the longer and more suffering-inducing sorts of deaths that lack of healthcare ensures).
You are quite literally arguing for killing people because you, singular, have not explicitly stated that you do not want to die. This would be extremely silly if not for this position just being
.
Then they don't have to use it in most cases (apart from their own birth-assistance and attempts to prevent them from dying in most cases, obviously, as well as where that would imperil others, like during an epi- or pandemic).
Where's the downside?
Well, I definitely do not value the opinions and voices of nazis who argue that people should be killed or tortured by preventing them from accessing healthcare because some dumbass might say 'I don't want it' (despite that dumbass using healthcare anyway).
Well, for example, you might actually provide an actual downside of universal healthcare. And no, some extremely well-off people being slightly less well-off is not a serious contender for a downside.
What 'universal ideology'?
'But what if this completely unrelated thing!?'
Because, while, in the case of healthcare, we know that everybody needs it and its lack is crucial, whom you want to marry and whether you do, and whether you want to have any or however many kids is just a matter of preference.
People should, in fact, be provided time for healthy sleep. If you want to argue that people should not be given time to sleep, you are, again, being extremely silly.
It isn't. People can survive without it just fine, and many don't even want to engage in it or with it in any capacity.
HAHAHA.
Well, in that case, you should be 'oppressed' by being provided healthcare.
This is so childish - 'oh no, people will be oppressed if they are guaranteed healthcare!'
(Also, by what 'definition'? Provide that definition. And don't worry, I am a mathematician by background - I love working with definitions.)
Firstly, this is incredibly vague - you haven't even defined what a 'tyrannical government' is. Maybe these 'tyrannical governments' are good, actually (given what you consider to be 'tyrannical', that does appear to be the case). Also, people like you think that colonialism, slavery, preventing people from accessing healthcare, etc. are somehow not 'tyrannical', but providing healthcare is.
Also, what are the chances that you just picked what states you count as 'tyrannical' based on the popular (and incorrect) views of average westerners?
Most USian citizens have so far not fought against slavery, colonialism, genocides, etc., but, rather, for that. Sounds like you are full of shit, to be brief.
Ah yes, the 'false premise' that basically every person needs healthcare. Why is it false, again?
I didn't say I don't need a nap, I didn't say people should not be allowed to nap. I said you don't get to decide if I need one or not. Go on fighting the nazis in your head.
You did implicitly argue that some people should be prevented from being able to sleep, and you overtly argued that people should be prevented from being able to access healthcare.
My position is literally that everybody needs healthcare, and that everybody needs to be provided ability to access it and use it when the need arises.
Your position has been that people should be prevented from accessing healthcare because some hypothetical dumbass who doesn't exist won't need healthcare at any point in their life. Your position is to literally kill people because of this hypothetical dumbass.
I'm already dealing with one that wants to literally kill people by making them unable to access healthcare in this forum thread.
EDIT: Furthermore, you still have not explained why that dumbass' existence shows that there is some cost to universal healthcare. Like, what does it matter to them if everybody gets access to healthcare, instead of somebody or everybody being prevented from accessing it?
Often the truth is somewhere in the middle.
It's a machine sludge word calculator with "existence ruiner" stamped on the side of it.