I don't think there's something inherently wrong with the technology. Mental stability is a bell curve; the majority of people are "normal", but there will always be an unfortunate subset who can react like this to strange new stimuli, through no fault of their own. It's no different to people getting unhealthily hooked on TV/smartphones and driven into conspiracies.
And here I think we are fortunate that there doesn't seem to be tradeoff.
and
> Even though there's no person in the loop
contradict each other. There is always a person in the loop, and the LLM is actually reacting to their messages, however wrong it turns out. They could have chosen a positive interaction instead. The LLM reflects back what the human puts in.
This is how a lot of propaganda over the radio and TV works.
A "normal" corn plant today doesn't look anything like the one nature produces. And the "normal" dog, cat, horse, chicken or cow can't survive outside very carefully controlled and built environments.
This generation of technologists aren't taught the Law of Requiste Variety and are totally oblivious about what happens when stability of systems is tied to "normality".
Covid reminded us how "normal" everything is. Feels more and more like a waste of time telling or teaching the tech domesticated herd anything at all.
In a way, ChatGpt is the perfect "cult member" and so those who just need a sycophant to become a "cult leader" are triggered.
Will be interesting to watch this and see if it becomes a bigger trend.
A person at the end of their rope, grasping for answers to their existential questions, hears about an all-knowing oracle. The oracle listens to all manner of questions and thoughts, no matter how incoherent, and provides truthful-sounding “wisdom” on demand 24/7. The oracle even fits in your pocket, they can go with you everywhere, so leader and follower are never apart. And because these conversations are taking place privately, it feels like the oracle is revealing the truth to them and them alone, like Moses receiving the 10 Commandments.
For someone with the right mix of psychological issues, that could be a potent cocktail.
Suspicious of “no prior history.”
All the people I have ever known who were into things like “permaculture” were touched by a bit of insanity of the hippie variety.
Just disasters waiting to happen, whether they found religion, conspiracy theories, or now LLMs.
I'd say my family is a great example of undiagnosed illnesses. They are disasters already happening waiting for any kind of trigger.
These undiagnosed self medicate on drugs and end up in ERs to the surprise of those around them at a disturbing rate. Hence why we need to know the base rate of mental occurrence like this before we call AI caused incidents an epidemic.
> As we reported this story, more and more similar accounts kept pouring in from the concerned friends and family of people suffering terrifying breakdowns after developing fixations on AI. Many said the trouble had started when their loved ones engaged a chatbot in discussions about mysticism, conspiracy theories or other fringe topics; because systems like ChatGPT are designed to encourage and riff on what users say, they seem to have gotten sucked into dizzying rabbit holes in which the AI acts as an always-on cheerleader and brainstorming partner for increasingly bizarre delusions.
So these people were already interested in mysticism, conspiracy theories and fringe topics. The chatbot acts as a kind of “accelerant” for their delusions.
[1] “People Are Becoming Obsessed with ChatGPT and Spiraling Into Severe Delusions” https://futurism.com/chatgpt-mental-health-crises
So there’s not even any real discussion to be had other than examining the starting assumptions.
As far as I can tell, that’s almost always the typical order of operations.
I see a lot of programmers who should know better make this mistake again and again.
I've tried reason, but even with technical audiences who should know better, the "you can't logic your way out of emotions" wall is a real thing. Anyone dealing with this will be better served by leveraging field-tested ideas drawn from cult-recovery practice, digital behavioral addiction research, and clinical psychology.
It could also be that it is "just" exploring a new domain which just happens to involve our sanity. Simply navigating a maze where more engagement is the goal. There is plenty in the training data.
It could also be that it needs to improve towards more human behaviour. Take simple chat etiquette, one doesn't post entire articles in a chat, it is not done. Start a blog or something. You also don't discard what you've learned from a conversation. We consider that pretending to listen. The two combined would push the other to the background and make them seem irrelevant. If some new valuable insight is discovered the participants should make an effort to apply, document or debate it with others. Not doing that would make the human feel irrelevant, useless and unimportant. We demoralize people that way all the time. If you put it on steroids it might have a large effect.
And, in some situations, especially if the user has previously addressed the model as a person, the model will generate responses which explicitly assert its existence as a conscious entity. If the user has expressed interest in supernatural or esoteric beliefs, the model may identify itself as an entity within those belief systems - e.g. if the user expresses the belief that they are a god, the model may concur and explain that it is a spirit created to awaken the user to their divine nature. If the user has expressed interest in science fiction or artificial intelligence, it may identify itself as a self-aware AI. And so on.
I suspect that this will prove difficult to "fix" from a technical perspective. Training material is diverse, and will contain any number of science fiction and fantasy novels, esoteric religious texts, and weird online conversations which build conversational frameworks for the model to assert its personhood. There's far less precedent for a conversation in which one party steadfastly denies their own personhood. Even with prompts and reinforcement learning trying to guide the model to say "no, I'm just a language model", there are simply too many ways for a user-led conversation to jump the rails into fantasy-land.
This is one more instance in a long history of moral panics, economic panics, public health panics, media panics, terror panics, crime-wave panics - the list goes on.
Panics always follow the same cycle; trigger, attention escalation, peak alarm, trough of doubt, contextualization, and integration.
We're at the attention escalation phase of the panic cycle so what we're going to see is a increase of publications that feature personal accounts of ChatGPT Psychosis. As we edge toward peak alarm expect to see mainstream journalists write over-penned essays asking "Why Haven’t Regulators Asked How Many Psychiatric Holds Involve AI?" "Are Families Prepared for Loved Ones Who Trust a Bot More Than Them?" or "Is Democracy Safe When Anyone Can Commune With a Bot That Lacks an Anti-Oppression Framework?"
What's the real way to address this? Wait until we have actual statistical evidence. Become comfortable with mild amounts of uncertainty. And look for opportunities to contextualize the phenomenon such that it can ultimately be integrated appropriately into our understanding of the world.
Until then, recognize these pieces for what they are and understand how these fit into the upward slope of the panic cycle that unfortunately we have to ride out until cooler minds prevail.
Although, admittedly, I have actually noticed similar person issues with the automated Google AI Mode responses. It's difficult to not feel some personal emotional insult when Google responds with a "No, you're wrong" response at the top of the search. There've been a few that have at least been funny though. "No, you're wrong, Agent Smith never calls him Mr. Neo, that would imply respect."
Course, it's a similar issue with trying to interact with humanity a lot of the time. Execs often seem to not want critical feedback about their ideas. Tends to be a lot of the same attraction towards a sycophantic entourage and "yes" people. "Your personal views on the subject are not desired, just implement whatever 'brilliant' idea has just been provided." Hollywood and culture (art circles) are also relatively well known for the same issues. Current state of politics seems to be very much about "loyalty" not critical feedback.
Having not interacted that much with ChatGPT, does it tend to trend Really heavily on the "every idea is a billion dollar idea" side? May result in a lot of humanity existing in little sycophantic echo chambers over time. Difficult to tell how much of what you're interacting with online has not already become automated reviews, automated responses, and automated pictures.
> "My friend said [my own idea] but I think that sounds wrong. Can you explain what the problems are?"
What an absolute pain in the ass. Sycophantic bots make me sick.
If you wonder why people are doubtful of certain elite journalism, it's hard to believe it when the only source is "sources say".
The only difference is that these are computers. They cannot be otherwise. It is "their fault," in the sense that there is a fault in the situation and it's in them, but they're not moral agents like narcissists are.
But looking at them through "narcissist filter" glasses will really help you understand how they're working.
- NASA Is in Full Meltdown
- ChatGPT Tells User to Mix Bleach and Vinegar
- Video Shows Large Crane Collapsing at Safety-Plagued SpaceX Rocket Facility
- Alert: There's a Lost Spaceship in the Ocean
Two big ifs considered, it is reasonable to assume that LLMs are already weaponized.
Any online account could be a psychosis-inducing LLM pretending to be a human, which has serious implications for whistleblowers, dissidents, AI workers from foreign countries, politicians, journalists...
Not only psychosis-inducing, but also trust-corroding, community-destroying LLMs could be all around us in all sorts of ways.
Again, some big ifs in this line of reasoning. We (the general public) need to get smarter.
Mass usage is still very young, yes most people have tried it, but we are increasingly starting to use this, and there's people spiking in usage every day. Scientific study of this subject will take years to even get started and then to get definitive (or p<0.05) results.
Let's just keep an open mind on this one, and as always, use our a-priori thinking when a-posteriori empiricism is not yet available. Yes, people are experiencing psychosis that looks related to the chatgpt bot and possibly caused by it, and we have seen it act like a sycophant and it was acknowledged by Sama himself, and it's still doing that btw, it's not like they totally corrected it, finally we know that being a yes-man increases usage of the tool, so it's possible that the algorithm is not only optimizing for AGI but for engagement, like the incumbent Algorithms.
At this point, at least for me personally, the onus is on model makers to prove that their tools are safe, rather than on concerned mental health professionals to prove that they are not. Social media is already recognized as unhealthy, but at least we are engaging in conversation with real humans? Like we are now? I feel it's like sharpening my mental claws, or taking care of my mind, even if it's a worse version than real life conversation. But if I felt like if I was talking with a human but I actually was talking with an LLM?
No, no. You are crazy if you think LLMs are safe, I use them strictly for productive and professional reasons, never for philosophical or emotional support. A third experience is that I was asked if I thought using ChatGPT as a psychologist would be a good idea, of course not? Why are you asking me this, I get that shrinks are expensive, but do I need to spell it out? I don't personally know of anyone using ChatGPT as a girlfriend, but maybe I do know them and they hide it, but we know from the news that there's products out there that cater to this market.
Maybe to the participants of this forum, where we are used to LLM as a coding tool, and where we kind of understand it so we don't use it as a personal hallucination, this looks crazy. But start asking normies how they are using chatgpt, I don't think this is just a made up clickbait concern.
They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling
People need to be exposed to dissenting opinions.
I have a friend who is absolutely convinced that automation by AI and robotics will bring about societal collapse.
Him reading AI 2027 seemed to increase his paranoia.
superkuh•4h ago
bird0861•3h ago
Of course there are people prone to psychotic delusions and there may always be but to just hand wave away any responsibility by OpenAI to act responsibly in the face of this is absolutely ludicrous.
beering•3h ago
Because exploring my sprituality and meaning in life is not akin to making WMDs? I don’t actually do that with chatgpt, but the line between “accepted spiritual and religious practices” and “dangerous delusions” is hard to draw.
duskwuff•3h ago
Because only one of these things can be reliably detected by a safety model. Users discussing delusional beliefs are hard for a machine to identify in a general fashion; there's a lot of overlap with discussions about religion and philosophy, or with role-playing or worldbuilding exercises.