this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
424 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

69770 readers
4432 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

The article talks of ChatGPT "inducing" this psychotic/schizoid behavior.

ChatGPT can't do any such thing. It can't change your personality organization. Those people were already there, at risk, masking high enough to get by until they could find their personal Messiahs.

It's very clear to me that LLM training needs to include protections against getting dragged into a paranoid/delusional fantasy world. People who are significantly on that spectrum (as well as borderline personality organization) are routinely left behind in many ways.

This is just another area where society is not designed to properly account for or serve people with "cluster" disorders.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

yet more arguments against commercial LLMs and in favour of at home uncensored LLMs.

[–] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

local LLMs won't necessarily force restrictions against de-realization spirals when the commercial ones do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 7rokhym@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/openai-says-its-identified-why-chatgpt-became-a-groveling-sycophant/ar-AA1E4LaV

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 4 points 21 hours ago

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

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 3 points 21 hours ago

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

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've found god in many a bush.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Satellaview@lemmy.zip 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] randomname@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Daggity@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Covid gave me an extremely different perspective on the zombie apocalypse. They’re going to have zombie immunization parties where everyone gets the virus.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

/.../

“It would tell him everything he said was beautiful, cosmic, groundbreaking,” she says.

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.

What I suspect: someone has trained their LLM on somethig like religious literature, fiction about religious experiences, or descriptions of religious experiences. If the AI is suitably prompted, it can re-enact such scenarios in text, while adapting the experience to the user at least somewhat. To a person susceptible to religious illusions (and let's not deny it, people are suscpecptible to finding deep meaning and purpose with shallow evidence), apparently an LLM can play the role of an indoctrinating co-believer, indoctrinating prophet or supportive follower.

[–] nomecks@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

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. :)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

In that sense, Westgate explains, the bot dialogues are not unlike talk therapy, “which we know to be quite effective at helping people reframe their stories.” Critically, though, AI, “unlike a therapist, does not have the person’s best interests in mind, or a moral grounding or compass in what a ‘good story’ looks like,” she says. “A good therapist would not encourage a client to make sense of difficulties in their life by encouraging them to believe they have supernatural powers. Instead, they try to steer clients away from unhealthy narratives, and toward healthier ones. ChatGPT has no such constraints or concerns.”

This is a rather terrifying take. Particularly when combined with the earlier passage about the man who claimed that “AI helped him recover a repressed memory of a babysitter trying to drown him as a toddler.” Therapists have to be very careful because human memory is very plastic. It's very easy to alter a memory, in fact, every time you remember something, you alter it just a little bit. Under questioning by an authority figure, such as a therapist or a policeman if you were a witness to a crime, these alterations can be dramatic. This was a really big problem in the '80s and '90s.

Kaitlin Luna: Can you take us back to the early 1990s and you talk about the memory wars, so what was that time like and what was happening?

Elizabeth Loftus: Oh gee, well in the 1990s and even in maybe the late 80s we began to see an altogether more extreme kind of memory problem. Some patients were going into therapy maybe they had anxiety, or maybe they had an eating disorder, maybe they were depressed, and they would end up with a therapist who said something like well many people I've seen with your symptoms were sexually abused as a child. And they would begin these activities that would lead these patients to start to think they remembered years of brutalization that they had allegedly banished into the unconscious until this therapy made them aware of it. And in many instances these people sued their parents or got their former neighbors or doctors or teachers whatever prosecuted based on these claims of repressed memory. So the wars were really about whether people can take years of brutalization, banish it into the unconscious, be completely unaware that these things happen and then reliably recover all this information later, and that was what was so controversial and disputed.

Kaitlin Luna: And your work essentially refuted that, that it's not necessarily possible or maybe brought up to light that this isn't so.

Elizabeth Loftus: My work actually provided an alternative explanation. Where could these merit reports be coming from if this didn't happen? So my work showed that you could plant very rich, detailed false memories in the minds of people. It didn't mean that repressed memories did not exist, and repressed memories could still exist and false memories could still exist. But there really wasn't any strong credible scientific support for this idea of massive repression, and yet so many families were destroyed by this, what I would say unsupported, claim.

The idea that ChatBots are not only capable of this, but that they are currently manipulating people into believing they have recovered repressed memories of brutalization is actually at least as terrifying to me as it convincing people that they are holy prophets.

Edited for clarity

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

GPT4o was a little too supportive... I think they took it down already

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

4o, in its current version, is a fucking sycophant. For me, it's annoying. For the person from that screenshot, its dangerous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vane@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 133 points 1 day ago (15 children)

TLDR: Artificial Intelligence enhances natural stupidity.

[–] Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 and remain blind to our own.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Probably because stopping to self analyze your decisions is a lot less effective than just running away from that lion over there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

I lost a parent to a spiritual fantasy. She decided my sister wasn't her child anymore because the christian sky fairy says queer people are evil.

At least ChatGPT actually exists.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

I admit I only read a third of the article.
But IMO nothing in that is special to AI, in my life I've met many people with similar symptoms, thinking they are Jesus, or thinking computers work by some mysterious power they posses, but was stolen from them by the CIA. And when they die all computers will stop working! Reading the conversation the wife had with him, it sounds EXACTLY like these types of people!
Even the part about finding "the truth" I've heard before, they don't know what it is the truth of, but they'll know when they find it?
I'm not a psychiatrist, but from what I gather it's probably Schizophrenia of some form.

My guess is this person had a distorted view of reality he couldn't make sense of. He then tried to get help from the AI, and he built a world view completely removed from reality with it.

But most likely he would have done that anyway, it would just have been other things he would interpret in extreme ways. Like news, or conversations, or merely his own thoughts.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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.

[–] rasbora@lemm.ee 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yeah, from the article:

Even sycophancy itself has been a problem in AI for “a long time,” says Nate Sharadin, a fellow at the Center for AI Safety, since the human feedback used to fine-tune AI’s responses can encourage answers that prioritize matching a user’s beliefs instead of facts. What’s likely happening with those experiencing ecstatic visions through ChatGPT and other models, he speculates, “is that people with existing tendencies toward experiencing various psychological issues,” including what might be recognized as grandiose delusions in clinical sense, “now have an always-on, human-level conversational partner with whom to co-experience their delusions.”

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So it's essentially the same mechanism with which conspiracy nuts embolden each other, to the point that they completely disconnect from reality?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (7 children)

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.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 3 points 23 hours ago

But Fuckerburg said we need AI friends.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 day ago

Like what, some kind of parenting?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›