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.
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.
What cons does universal healthcare have?
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).
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.
Often the truth is somewhere in the middle.