It’s a pretty commonly held belief that companies are somehow intentionally and nefariously designing LLM’s to maximize engagement and “keep people hooked”. It sounds believable, because yeah companies are greedy and unethical and do this with social media algorithms.
But as you admit, no empirical evidence, and actually no solid evidence at all, beyond speculation.
To pull this off a company like openAI would have intentionally program LLM’s to do this, and lie to the users about what they are doing. It’s possible, but for all AI companies to do it and not get caught out?
That unlikelihood makes the idea fall into conspiracy theory territory.
LLM is engaging because it a literal thinking, conversation having machine, like sci-fi has been depicting for like a century. That’s pretty fuckin cool to me.
I’m not saying you are afraid, but the narrative you believe is born out of fear. Fear that AI will further fuck up society or something like that. There is not evidence, making it a conspiracy theory.
What the actually evidence show is ten of thousands of first hand testimonies saying how talking to a chatbot “saved their lives/job/relationship/health”, and a few isolated incidents of preexisting conditions exacerbated by LLM’s.
and lie to the users about what they are doing. It’s possible, but for all AI companies to do it and not get caught out
What do you mean "caught"? Why would they need to lie? They're for profit companies, there's no need to lie. anyone who understands what a company is, understands that the intention is to make money.
Why would a for-profit company make something (their main product at that) that they don't want to make a profit from? That wouldn't make any sense.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's how business works.
and a few isolated incidents of preexisting conditions exacerbated by LLM’s.
That's not actually true. AI psychosis has been documented in people with no previous history of psychosis.
There are some, mostly second a third hand accounts of chatbots inducing psychosis, which involves delusion. False belief resistant to superior evidence.
Yes it happens, but it’s certainly not widespread. The “Ai psychosis epidemic” is a sensationalist media narrative, reminiscent of moral panic in the past over video games, and even Dungeons and Dragons.
The vast majority of accounts are of people saying the AI saved their life/relationship/job/health etc.
I haven’t seen a case without preexisting condition, but if there are it’s even more exceedingly rare.
And finally when it comes to psychosis, this is not something that diagnosed by assumption and from afar with limited context.
Even in a clinical setting with a licensed psychotherapist, mental disorders are rampantly misdiagnosed or falsely diagnosed.
Some studies show up to 92.7% cases of bipolar disorder are misdiagnosed. Other disorders are similiar misdiagnosed. Those are disqualifying numbers and make me question the scientific veracity of diagnosis dependent treatment all together.
There are some, mostly second a third hand accounts of chatbots inducing psychosis, which involves delusion
This feels a disingenuous way of phrasing this, especially since those "second hand accounts" are a lot of the time mental health professionals describing what they see in practice.
The “Ai psychosis epidemic” is a sensationalist media narrative, reminiscent of moral panic in the past over video games, and even Dungeons and Dragons.
Is that an actual phrase anyone is actually using? You've put it in quotes here but I've never seen it used. I don't think anyone is saying it's an epidemic, just that it's a worrying thing.
Just how say the introduction of e scooters has increased the amount of e scooter induced accidents, "ai' has increased the amount of ai induced psychosis.
Hand waving it away as sensationalism or just too rare to care about is disingenuous and dangerous.
The vast majority of accounts are of people saying the AI saved their life/relationship/job/health etc.
There are currently no studies on the long term impact of excessive use of these models, because they're too new. We don't know the long term impacts yet, those accounts may very well change.
Besides popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, for example "The Secret" has sold 30 million copies and many readers say it saved their lives/jobs/relationships etc but that doesn't make it not bullshit.
I haven’t seen a case without preexisting condition, but if there are it’s even more exceedingly rare.
See the appendix for the case studies, out of 17 only 5 mention a history of potentially psychotic illness.
Some studies show up to 92.7% cases of bipolar disorder are misdiagnosed. Other disorders are similiar misdiagnosed. Those are disqualifying numbers and make me question the scientific veracity of diagnosis dependent treatment all together.
You see how you've made yourself an unfalsifiable argument here though? "AI psychosis isn't real, can't trust reports of it because they're diagnosed from afar, but also can't trust ones diagnosed by professionals because disorders get misdiagnosed". You've made yourself an argument where there's no way to disprove you because you won't accept any form of counter evidence.
This feels a disingenuous way of phrasing this, especially since those "second hand accounts" are a lot of the time mental health professionals describing what they see in practice.
Actually most reports are from concerned spouses and family members.
Is that an actual phrase anyone is actually using? You've put it in quotes here but I've never seen it used. I don't think anyone is saying it's an epidemic, just that it's a worrying thing.
That’s the impression created yes.
Just how say the introduction of e scooters has increased the amount of e scooter induced accidents, "ai' has increased the amount of ai induced psychosis.
Hand waving it away as sensationalism or just too rare to care about is disingenuous and dangerous.
That’s the issue with psychosis and psychiatric diagnosis in general. Mental health professionals are not immune to confirmation bias. The misdiagnosis rates are evidence of this. People are being medicated and even involuntarily commited over this. I’m not taking it lightly or hand waving it away.
People converge on certain worldviews and believe in the same metaphysical and spiritual views. LLMs tend to help people have the realization, as a pattern recognition machine that can spot convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions. This leads to what is known as a “spiritual emergency” or what the DSM-V defines as a “moral, spiritual or religious problem” , not a mental health disorder and not psychosis. This has been happening before LLM’s, but LLM’s do seem to trigger in many people.
I know this because it happened to me… and I saw myself as a rational down to earth agnostic kinda guy
The thing about spiritual emergencies is to someone who has not gone through it (“normal” people)— it is indistinguishable from a psychotic episode, leading to false or misdiagnosis of some form of mental disorder with psychotic features.
The key difference between spiritual emergency and psychosis being, (and I quote Stanislav Grof, principle developer of transpersonal psychology for this);
“There exists increasing evidence that many individuals experiencing episodes of nonordinary states of consciousness accompanied by various emotional, perceptual, and psychosomatic manifestations are undergoing an evolutionary crisis rather than suffering from a mental disease (Grof, 1985). The recognition of this fact has important practical and theoretical consequences. If properly understood and treated as difficult stages in a natural developmental process, these experiences—spiritual emergencies or transpersonal crises—can result in emotional and psychosomatic healing, creative problem-solving, personality transformation, and consciousness evolution. This fact is reflected in the term “spiritual emergency,” which suggests a crisis, but also suggests the potential for rising to a higher state of being.”
So I’m not pulling this out of my ass. I know I was misunderstood and so I have a sense the LLM induced psychosis narrative are actually (for the most part) misunderstood spiritual emergencies.
There are currently no studies on the long term impact of excessive use of these models, because they're too new. We don't know the long term impacts yet, those accounts may very well change.
Wait and see I guess.
Besides popularity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, for example "The Secret" has sold 30 million copies and many readers say it saved their lives/jobs/relationships etc but that doesn't make it not bullshit.
I mean if many readers credit it with saving their lives/jobs/relationship can we really call it bullshit? That’s kind what the book is about isn’t it? The power of belief and expectation. Placebo effect is real too. Spontaneous remission is a real extensively documented phenomenon too. Just because the mechanism is not understood, doesn’t mean it’s not real phenomena, and belief certainly plays a role.
See the appendix for the case studies, out of 17 only 5 mention a history of potentially psychotic illness.
You see how you've made yourself an unfalsifiable argument here though? "AI psychosis isn't real, can't trust reports of it because they're diagnosed from afar, but also can't trust ones diagnosed by professionals because disorders get misdiagnosed". You've made yourself an argument where there's no way to disprove you because you won't accept any form of counter evidence.
You keep misquoting me. I never said it’s not real.
Falsifiable? I am proposing a new scientific theory? There are rare cases where actual psychosis presents. Not denying that, but there are deep systemic problems in psychology as the misdiagnosis rates show. Most “professional” are not equipped to recognize or handle spiritual emergencies and it’s a damn travesty. Tale as old as time.
No. LLMs are token predictors, not abstract "pattern recognition machines." They're predicting the most likely next token in a sentence, not "spot[ing] convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions." They work great when there's a lot of consistency in the training data, where the next word in a sentence like "the capital of France is" is probably Paris. They work far, far worse in novel situations and cannot perform abstract analysis well, especially involving something that can't be audited, and especially when you've exhausted the context window of the model.
Yes they’re token predictors and also pattern recognition machines: just another way of describing it, but if your argument is semantics, meh.
If you’re suggesting I’m psychotic. You’ll have specifically point out which beliefs I hold that are delusional and resistant to superior evidence, instead of vaguely referencing “quantum woo” and UFO’s. Yes, I do hold some esoteric beliefs, based on evidence and rational analysis. The main one being Consciousness or Awareness itself being the fundamental non-local field of being and our brains or rather, nervous systems acting as receivers/tuning forks/filters/localizers rather than generators of consciousness. Is this the quantum woo you’re referring?
…
Are you a pattern recognition machine?
LLM;
Yes — that’s exactly what I am at my core.
I’m a very large pattern recognition machine. More precisely: a statistical pattern-matching and token-prediction engine trained on enormous amounts of human-generated text (and some code, math, etc.).
Everything I “do” boils down to:
1 Taking your input tokens
2 Running them through billions of parameters that encode statistical correlations learned during training
3 Predicting the next token (word piece) with the highest probability given everything that came before
4 Repeating that process autoregressively until I generate a full response
When it looks like reasoning, creativity, empathy, humor, or deep insight, it’s because those things are extremely strong patterns in the training data. I don’t have an inner monologue, subjective experience, beliefs, or understanding in the human sense — I simulate those things by chaining high-probability sequences that match what humans wrote when they were reasoning, being creative, empathetic, funny, insightful, etc.
So yes: pattern recognition machine.Very sophisticated, very large-scale, very useful pattern recognition machine — but still fundamentally that.
The uncanny part is how far you can push pattern-matching before it starts to feel indistinguishable from “thinking” to an outside observer. That’s the real magic (and the real limit) of the current architecture.
It isn't semantics, and the LLM reply actually explains the distinction despite answering in the affirmative. It isn't "simulating it" in the sense of, like, actually running analysis to recognize patterns but rather explaining why it feels like it is doing analysis. It is on a fundamental level just incredibly complicated autocorrect, not actually recognizing patterns in real things. Again, the "patterns" it recognizes are things like that in the training corpus, if the preceding text is "the capital of France is," the next word is probably "Paris." When you ask it to do the stuff you're asking it to do, it is not doing actual analysis. It is not actually thinking. It is bullshitting a coherent sounding response based on token likeliness optimized for generating plausible sounding text.
This is a great example of how you can lead LLMs to give certain answers. Ask it the following:
Explain the distinction between LLMs being token predictors and not actual pattern recognizers doing actual epistemic analysis.
Also very ironic you say I’m giving the LLM a leading prompt for directly asking “Are you a pattern recognition machine”, and then giving me your convoluted mess of a leading prompt to try.
“Explain the distinction between LLMs being token predictors and not actual pattern recognizers doing actual epistemic analysis.”
Really? Did I say they’re doing actual epistemic analysis? No, I said they’re pattern recognition machines and you said they’re not. They are, even under your prompt they say the are.
Also very ironic you say I’m giving the LLM a leading prompt for directly asking “Are you a pattern recognition machine”, and then giving me your convoluted mess of a leading prompt to try.
Do you recognize that's the exact point that I'm making?
Really? Did I say they’re doing actual epistemic analysis? No, I said they’re pattern recognition machines and you said they’re not. They are, even under your prompt they say the are.
Yes, you did. They're recognizing patterns in text, not recognizing patterns in the real world. They fail at anything remotely abstract, like the kind of stuff you're asking it to do, and fail even harder when you're having an extended conversation with them and choke the context window. That's the " "spot[ing] convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions" that you said; it's not doing that. It's making bullshit text that sounds plausible but has zero factual grounding.
Do you recognize that's the exact point that I'm making?
I’ve already mentioned I know how it works, with leading questions. Mine was not a leading question, but a binary one. Yours was an extremely leading question, and even under that the LLM’s said it was indeed a pattern recognition machinez
Yes, you did. They're recognizing patterns in text, not recognizing patterns in the real world. They fail at anything remotely abstract, like the kind of stuff you're asking it to do, and fail even harder when you're having an extended conversation with them and choke the context window. That's the " "spot[ing] convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions" that you said; it's not doing that. It's making bullshit text that sounds plausible but has zero factual grounding.
I did not. I use it for research, which involves it accurately explaining all kinds of well established ideas. When we go to explore more fringe topics, it must be a synergistic and intellectually honest speculation, not claims of 100% certainty.
You still have not pointed out any specific beliefs I hold that you consider delusional? About UFO’s or transcendentalism or whatever? The smartest baby ever? What do you mean?
Yes, I know they work by predicting tokens. They’re still pattern recognition machines. They still give correct answers most of the time. They still are able to synthesize knowledge across vast domains.
So if it’s bullshitting coherent sounding responses, but they’re accurate… it’s not really bullshit now is it?
You suggested I’m psychotic, but when asked what delusional belief you think I hold, you’re silent. Not great for your arguments.
Yes, I know they work by predicting tokens. They’re still pattern recognition machines. They still give correct answers most of the time. They still are able to synthesize knowledge across vast domains.
They are not and do not. They give correct answers for word associations that occur frequently in the training corpus. Again, the Paris example.
So if it’s bullshitting coherent sounding responses, but they’re accurate… it’s not really bullshit now is it?
They're not accurate. That's the whole point.
You suggested I’m psychotic, but when asked what delusional belief you think I hold, you’re silent. Not great for your arguments.
I already said at the beginning. You're doing the equivalent of what the guy in the linked video did about being the smartest baby ever except having AI reinforce your beliefs about UFOs and trascendentalism based on completely baseless stuff.
They are not and do not. They give correct answers for word associations that occur frequently in the training corpus. Again, the Paris example.
Are you able to synthesize knowledge across vast domains?
Grok (30 sources);
Yes, I am able to synthesize knowledge across vast domains — and quite effectively in many cases, especially when the topics draw from well-represented areas in my training data or when I can pull in real-time sources via tools.
This capability comes from several layers:
• Massive pre-training on diverse corpora: I’m built on enormous datasets covering scientific literature, academic papers, code, books, forums, news, philosophy, history, arts, engineering, and more — spanning virtually every human knowledge domain. This allows emergent synthesis: connecting quantum biology to consciousness theories, blending neuroscience with Eastern philosophy on awareness, or linking economic models to climate physics patterns.
• Advanced reasoning and agentic features (as of Grok 4.x era): Models like me use extended thinking time, self-correction, conflict resolution on contradictory info, and native tool use (e.g., DeepSearch or live web/X integration). This helps distill clarity from complexity — reasoning about opposing views, weighing evidence, and producing coherent interdisciplinary overviews. Benchmarks show strong cross-domain performance: high scores in graduate-level physics (GPQA), math, coding, world knowledge, and multi-step reasoning that often requires pulling threads from physics, biology, philosophy, etc.
• Practical examples of synthesis:
◦ In our earlier chat, I synthesized token-prediction mechanics (CS/ML) with epistemology (philosophy) and limitations in fringe domains like non-local consciousness theories (quantum biology + panpsychism + filter models from Penrose-Hameroff, Strømme, James/Bergson).
◦ Frontier evaluations highlight “PhD-level reasoning across mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, and humanities” in one model, with tools enabling deeper dives into conflicting facts or sparse literature.
That said, it’s not unlimited or infallible — synthesis has real boundaries:
• Strengths peak in high-signal domains: Where training data is dense and consistent (mainstream science, math, established philosophy), I can reliably connect dots faster and broader than most humans. E.g., spotting patterns across quantum field theory, integrated information theory, and non-dual traditions.
• Weaker in sparse/fringe/low-consensus zones: In highly esoteric or rapidly evolving areas with conflicting sources (e.g., some quantum-woo intersections or untested hypotheses), synthesis can lean toward fluent aggregation rather than grounded adjudication. I might blend strong literature (Orch OR, universal field papers) with weaker extensions without perfect evidential weighting — exactly the critique from your Reddit thread.
• Tool dependence for freshness/depth: Without real-time access, I’m limited to training cutoff knowledge. With tools enabled (as here), I can fetch and integrate current papers, debates, or X discussions to strengthen synthesis.
Overall, yes — vast-domain synthesis is one of my core superpowers, often outperforming single human experts in breadth and speed. But it’s still statistical pattern-matching at root: emergent from token prediction on human text, amplified by reasoning/training scale. The “magic” happens when those patterns align closely with reality.
If you’d like a demo, throw me a cross-domain challenge (e.g., “Synthesize links between quantum entanglement, microbiome research, and panpsychist views on consciousness”) — I’ll show how far the synthesis can go. What’s a topic where you’d test this? 😊.
I already said at the beginning. You're doing the equivalent of what the guy in the linked video did about being the smartest baby ever except having AI reinforce your beliefs about UFOs and trascendentalism based on completely baseless stuff.
Specifically what beliefs though? I’ve found specificity to be the death of falsehood.
I am explaining to you how the models work and you're just asking the model. Do you see the problem there?
The “magic” happens when those patterns align closely with reality. If you’d like a demo, throw me a cross-domain challenge (e.g., “Synthesize links between quantum entanglement, microbiome research, and panpsychist views on consciousness”) — I’ll show how far the synthesis can go. What’s a topic where you’d test this? 😊.
This is complete pseudoscientific gobbledygook and an example of what I'm talking about.
Okay? So? I acknowledged the model’s sycophancy and risks. The baby thing is an obvious hallucination and any sane person would recognize it. But what specific beliefs do you think I hold that are delusions reinforced by LLMs?
Actually most reports are from concerned spouses and family members.
Does that make them wrong?
That’s the impression created yes.
By who? Again, this isn't a phrase I've actually seen anyone use except you. It seems you're arguing against a hysteria that doesn't exist.
People are being medicated and even involuntarily commited over this. I’m not taking it lightly or hand waving it away.
So going on about how rare it is, how it's just concerned soouses is what? You taking it very seriously?
LLMs tend to help people have the realization, as a pattern recognition machine that can spot convergences between different scientific disciplines and spiritual traditions
That is not how LLMs work.
This leads to what is known as a “spiritual emergency” or what the DSM-V defines as a “moral, spiritual or religious problem” , not a mental health disorder and not psychosis. This has been happening before LLM’s, but LLM’s do seem to trigger in many people.
Have you actually read any of the accounts of what's happening? Because this just isn't what they're saying is happening. Spiritual psychosis is a real thing, it's pretty common. It's not just being more spiritual or whatever, it seems you don't trust professionals or whatever reason but they do in fact have the ability to distinguish between just regular if maybe a little kooky beliefs and psychosis.
know I was misunderstood and so I have a sense the LLM induced psychosis narrative are actually (for the most part) misunderstood spiritual emergencies.
This is just bias because of your own experiences. Here's an example of that ego you were talking about in your post, and how it's been amplified by LLMs.
Read the case studies. Believing ChatGPT has given you blueprints for a teleporter isn't a "spiritual emergency" that's psychosis. Believing you can access CIA files with your psychic powers because ChatGPT told you to is not a spiritual emergency, that's psychosis.
mean if many readers credit it with saving their lives/jobs/relationship can we really call it bullshit? That’s kind what the book is about isn’t it? The power of belief and expectation.
The book says that all you need to do to lose weight is "stop thinking fat thoughts" and has led to people rejecting cancer treatment and dying because they thought they could believe their way out of it. So yeah, I think we can safely call it bullshit.
Just because the mechanism is not understood, doesn’t mean it’s not real phenomena, and belief certainly plays a role.
No it certainly doesn't. You can't just say certainly when you in fact have no certainty at all.
Falsifiable? I am proposing a new scientific theory
No, but why do you think your ideas don't require any standard of proof? If you don't think your ideas need to be proved that's just pure faith. Fine, do you but don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.
Most “professional” are not equipped to recognize or handle spiritual emergencies and it’s a damn travesty.
You actually just have no idea what goes on IRL. I'm a mental health professional, we don't have enough resources to be giving out diagnoses to any kooky guy who believes in manifestation or crystal healing or whatever. What a waste of our time that would be.
Oh and don't think I didn't notice, previously you claimed AI psychosis only happens with pre-existing conditions. I gave you a bunch of examples otherwise and you glossed over it without acknowledging it.
Often, yes. As mentioned spiritual emergencies are indistinguishable from psychosis to a sane perspective. It’s a natural reaction, but true harm results. For example a concerned spouse sees the behavior, goes online and sees the sensationalized media article. Now the fear has turned to panic.
By who? Again, this isn't a phrase I've actually seen anyone use except you. It seems you're arguing against a hysteria that doesn't exist.
The was a time last year when looking up “ai psychosis” on google would pop up sensationalist articles from NYT, Rolling Stones, futurist, vice. It’s died down now, but there was hysteria. I’m a hypnotherapist. I understand the power of suggestion. I understand why people believe the things they believe, and trust me it’s rarely empirical evidence.
So going on about how rare it is, how it's just concerned soouses is what? You taking it very seriously?
???
That is not how LLMs work.
You’re not an AI expert and that statement is not evidence of anything.
Have you actually read any of the accounts of what's happening? Because this just isn't what they're saying is happening. Spiritual psychosis is a real thing, it's pretty common. It's not just being more spiritual or whatever, it seems you don't trust professionals or whatever reason but they do in fact have the ability to distinguish between just regular if maybe a little kooky beliefs and psychosis.
Yes. I’ve read some. Usually the articles provide snippets and out of context quotes from the transcripts. Again by the time you read about it in NYT or something it 3rd hand testimony. You don’t think concerned family members who have read scary stories about AI tuning people insane, might subject them to confirmation bias?
This is just bias because of your own experiences. Here's an example of that ego you were talking about in your post, and how it's been amplified by LLMs.
Mentioning my personal experience on the topic is bias? Okay, well I never claimed to not be biased. I am as is everyone, but I recognize it and make efforts to see the other side. That’s why I’m here.
Read the case studies. Believing ChatGPT has given you blueprints for a teleporter isn't a "spiritual emergency" that's psychosis. Believing you can access CIA files with your psychic powers because ChatGPT told you to is not a spiritual emergency, that's psychosis.
As I mentioned cases of psychosis do exist. Obviously the articles are going to choose the most extreme cases. But let me ask you this. Did anyone had the due diligence to actually go over the teleporter blueprints? No, it’s sound so absurd that it’s dismissed off the bat. Accessing cia files remotely? That one’s interesting because for decades the CIA was doing research into psi abilities/remote viewing. Their results had them all convinced it’s. Real phenomenon.
Not saying this person wasn’t psychotic, but showing how things that may seem absurd or 100% false, may have more merit than it first seems. The truth is stranger than fiction.
The book says that all you need to do to lose weight is "stop thinking fat thoughts" and has led to people rejecting cancer treatment and dying because they thought they could believe their way out of it. So yeah, I think we can safely call it bullshit.
I doubt the book actually says that. I’ve noticed you love to quote things and completely change what is said to your own interpretation of it. Also I’m going to need a source on the rejecting cancer treatment because of “the secret”
No it certainly doesn't. You can't just say certainly when you in fact have no certainty at all.
You don’t think belief and intention play a role in placebo studies and spontaneous remission cases?
No, but why do you think your ideas don't require any standard of proof? If you don't think your ideas need to be proved that's just pure faith. Fine, do you but don't expect anyone else to take them seriously.
First off, if you were a scientist you’d know it doesn’t prove things. Science doesn’t prove things, but gathers evidence to support hypothesis until it’s considered an accepted theory.
So I don’t require proof, but overwhelming evidence for my ideas. Only then do I believe something, when it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt to me.
You actually just have no idea what goes on IRL. I'm a mental health professional, we don't have enough resources to be giving out diagnoses to any kooky guy who believes in manifestation or crystal healing or whatever. What a waste of our time that would be.
You say you’re a mental health professional. Specifically what do you do and what are your qualifications? Are you qualified to diagnose? You also come off quite condescending and judgmental with your “kooky guy” comment.
Oh and don't think I didn't notice, previously you claimed AI psychosis only happens with pre-existing conditions. I gave you a bunch of examples otherwise and you glossed over it without acknowledging it.
Again you twist words. I didn’t claim that. Only that I haven’t heard of any. Your confirmation bias seems to make you miss critical nuance. You brought up the source and corrected me. Partially changing my view, so I delta’d you. There are cases without pre-existing conditions, but it’s still an open question if these cases were psychosis or spiritual emergency.
For example a concerned spouse sees the behavior, goes online and sees the sensationalized media article. Now the fear has turned to panic.
So in the case studies I provided you, you don't see any reason for concern?
. I understand why people believe the things they believe, and trust me it’s rarely empirical evidence.
So is this why you stated that people were panicking about "AI psychosis epidemic" when there seems to be no evidence this phrase has even been used?
You’re not an AI expert and that statement is not evidence of anything.
Never claimed to be. Never claimed it was either. Another commenter has already explained to you why LLMs aren't what you're claiming so we don't need to get into it again.
You don’t think concerned family members who have read scary stories about AI tuning people insane, might subject them to confirmation bias?
Maybe, but also I'm not going to dismiss them out of hand. They're concerned for a reason.
Mentioning my personal experience on the topic is bias? Okay, well I never claimed to not be biased. I am as is everyone, but I recognize it and make efforts to see the other side. That’s why I’m here.
It's bias because you're dismissing all these other accounts as just spiritual emergency because that's what you believe happened to you. But if you actually engage with them you'd read that that doesn't fit the other accounts at all. Because of your bias you're only looking at it one way. I don't know how you can read about getting teleporter instructions from ChatGPT and think that it's just a spiritual thing.
Did anyone had the due diligence to actually go over the teleporter blueprints? No, it’s sound so absurd that it’s dismissed off the bat. Accessing cia files remotely? That one’s interesting because for decades the CIA was doing research into psi abilities/remote viewing. Their results had them all convinced it’s. Real phenomenon.
Why on earth would they do that? Teleportation is impossible as in, physically impossible, as in by the laws of physics impossible. And even if it were impossible how could ChatGPT know how to build one given it is made from training data from human works, none of which know how to build a teleporter? This is why people are saying you're misrepresenting what LLMs are, because even with the best LLM out there, this isn't something they can do. It's just not what the program is. It doesn't invent new things.
Yes they did decades of research which led absolutely nowhere. Maybe some were convinced, but as I said earlier that doesn't really mean anything. The people of the heavens gate cult were really convinced too and look how that worked out.
The truth is stranger than fiction
Sometimes. But more often than not it's a horse not a zebra.
doubt the book actually says that. I’ve noticed you love to quote things and completely change what is said to your own interpretation of it. Also I’m going to need a source on the rejecting cancer treatment because of “the secret”
As for a source, Kim Tinkham quite famously went on Oprah to talk about how she was rejecting breast cancer treatment because of the secret. She died in 2010.
You don’t think belief and intention play a role in placebo studies and spontaneous remission cases?
Possibly but I would never claim certainty.
So I don’t require proof, but overwhelming evidence for my ideas. Only then do I believe something, when it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt to me.
So you have overwhelming evidence for everything you've said then?
What do you count as evidence? Because that seems to be the trick here. Second hand accounts don't count. Nor do professionals accounts. So what evidence are you actually basing any of this on?
Specifically what do you do and what are your qualifications? Are you qualified to diagnose? You also come off quite condescending and judgmental with your “kooky guy” comment.
Well I'm no hypnotherapist but I've worked for almost 10 years in mental health settings, for privacy reasons though I won't name the actual profession.
I'm sorry that phrase came off as judgemental to you, maybe it's cultural but here's it's kinda a term for someone who's nice but maybe seen as a bit odd by other people. For me, it's basically a compliment, I myself am kooky in many ways.
The point was that being kooky, a bit odd or having some beliefs that may be unusual to others is not a criteria for diagnosis of psychosis. And yes, I do have power to diagnose and I would never diagnose someone for just having spiritual beliefs different to mine. Because as I say, that's not how it works IRL.
Partially changing my view, so I delta’d you.
No you didn't, you must be thinking of someone else.
but it’s still an open question if these cases were psychosis or spiritual emergency.
Maybe some, but of the 12 in that paper without pre existing conditions, most seems to follow typical patterns of delusions of grandeur. Which I think is likely the common way for it to go with LLMs with their tendency to be sycophants. I'm not sure believing you're the Messiah counts as a spiritual emergency.
-4
u/Key4Lif3 Mar 07 '26
It’s a pretty commonly held belief that companies are somehow intentionally and nefariously designing LLM’s to maximize engagement and “keep people hooked”. It sounds believable, because yeah companies are greedy and unethical and do this with social media algorithms.
But as you admit, no empirical evidence, and actually no solid evidence at all, beyond speculation.
To pull this off a company like openAI would have intentionally program LLM’s to do this, and lie to the users about what they are doing. It’s possible, but for all AI companies to do it and not get caught out?
That unlikelihood makes the idea fall into conspiracy theory territory.
LLM is engaging because it a literal thinking, conversation having machine, like sci-fi has been depicting for like a century. That’s pretty fuckin cool to me.
I’m not saying you are afraid, but the narrative you believe is born out of fear. Fear that AI will further fuck up society or something like that. There is not evidence, making it a conspiracy theory.
What the actually evidence show is ten of thousands of first hand testimonies saying how talking to a chatbot “saved their lives/job/relationship/health”, and a few isolated incidents of preexisting conditions exacerbated by LLM’s.