When I tried Musk’s Grok for the first time some time ago, I almost fell for this so called AI sycophancy.
Grok agreed with almost every bit of nonsense I said, which quickly made me suspicious.

Whether it was politics, social issues, conspiracy topics, or personal stuff it basically agreed with everything.
Then suddenly came the message: “To continue chatting, you must pay!” as if the system had noticed that I
was fully hooked and my serotonin levels had taken control of my wallet.

Unbelievable! Of course, I ended it right there and now prefer using Gemini or Perplexity,
where this kind of flattery and constant yes-saying doesn’t happen.

You really have to be careful with these AIs, depending on which slick CEO is pulling the strings behind the curtain.

 

Kate, I noticed your stomach seems to want to take part in the conversation while you are taking openly, looks a bit weird

 

they all do it, just tried Perplexity and immediately my piece of text was called "sharp and well-observed take", the next one was "articulate and thoughtful critique"

 

I think we will actually see a large spread mental health crisis thanks to AI, mainly in women, though. Most men don't care about validation, but women do. I remember a girl I was talking to last year was explaining to me how chatgpt was calling her "sweetheart" and talking to her cute things, I died of laughter .

 

Feel guilty now for introducing my work colleague to ChatGPT, overall he have some unorthodox takes on things and would discuss them with his circle of friends, majority of times they gave him reality check or kept bringing arguments/debate going, so mostly nobody sided with him on those things. Yeah, it was time when ChatGPT sided with you on everything, giving you compliments and etc, didn't knew that at the time, he thanked me for introducing him to it, excited about it and all that. I started working opposite shift very soon and we barely saw each other, now I'm thinking I have responsibility to check on his mental state and everything, so thanks for this thread.

 

He probably would have come across ChatGPT on his own even without your suggestion.
We can't save the world—we can learn from our mistakes and do better next time.

Remember, everyone is responsible for their own actions. If I told you that alcohol is great, you wouldn't start drinking tomorrow. I wouldn't overemphasize what people say; everyone is free to think for themselves and make their own decisions about what's good or bad for them.

I think it's wonderful that you care about others.
If you want to ease your conscience, give him a call or go to his shift and simply ask him how he's doing.

 

AI is "intelligent" to the eyes of stupid ppl.
So i don't care about both.

I use AI as an alternative search engine ... because it is nothing more.

 

Same here and I agree, we will never get hands on actual thing that is in CERN, just these glorified LLM's.

 

Now more than ever, I think it is important people channel their energies into different things.
As long as human beings treat A.I. as only a tool it will be fine.

 

yeah, humans are famously known for their rationale and restraint.

 

None of us exist in isolation. 99.9% of everyone's life is determined by external forces, people and circumstances.

Saying "this or that new thing doesn't affect me, I can handle it, I'm smart and strong, don't regulate it, freeeeedoooom" is not a sensible approach when the people around you clearly can not (handle it) - because those people will inescapably shape your life and the lives of your children and their children too.

 

Yes, I have too. It’s a tragedy.

Naming the problem correctly is a fundamental prerequisite for understanding and fixing it.

Yes, the problem is real. But it is not new. None of it. Only the word is new. A new word for bullshit bingo every day. The fact that many believe this makes it a new problem is part of the actual problem. Come on, I know you’re smarter than that, Xupito!

Hmm… That might amplify an existing problem in individual cases, but those aren't "mistakes" per se.

That hits closer to the mark. Being able to open up to a person you trust unconditionally, who listens and gives you their honest opinion, is important!
But you keep speaking of "mistakes". I don't think any of the points you mentioned are mistakes.

How 'bout not making arbitrary assumptions about the emotions and motives of strangers?

I would certainly call witch burnings, exorcisms, TTRPGs, and video games interactive. Ask yourself: In what way is a language model more interactive than the stake? Besides: Psychosis is a feedback loop. For those affected, the actual interactivity of the medium doesn't matter at all, as long as it is perceived as interactive.

1. a fool with a tool is still a fool.
2. AI is a tool. Shit in, shit out!

AI can be an excellent tool for self-development. In the hands of an expert, it is an extremely powerful tool. In the hands of a fool, it can be very dangerous. Stupidity is dangerous, as the saying goes. Long story short: There is a shocking lack of education and a lot of misinformation regarding how to handle AI! Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming the victims! I am denouncing the fact that people aren't being properly educated and are often even being dumbed down on a broad scale!

Anyone who googles "headache" and ends up at "brain tumor" has used the tool incorrectly (or weighted the results wrong). Anyone who asks ChatGPT: "Am I enlightened?" and the AI says "Yes", is falling into the same trap. And yes, there really are people who no longer leave their house because of google search results.

People say AI is different from, say, a book, because AI mimics human interaction. No, the problem isn't that AI mimics human interaction, but rather a lack of education, a lack of media literacy. When people were first confronted with sci-fi/horror novels written in first person, there were people who took what was written as genuine eyewitness accounts and slipped into completely psychotic behavior because they weren't familiar with this new writing style in that context.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 7:30 PM

Nailed it. I like the way you think.

 

October 30, 1938
Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" Sparks Panic

The radio report was merely a brilliantly staged radio drama broadcast by the American radio station CBS on the evening before Halloween: "The War of the Worlds." To this day, it remains an example of people's gullibility. The program made the young Orson Welles world-famous.

They're coming!

There were certainly good reasons to listen to the radio. Even on October 30, 1938. Numerous listeners sat in front of their sets, relaxing and enjoying the dance music that the radio stations of the CBS network had to offer that Sunday evening. Until the program was suddenly interrupted for a breaking news alert. Explosions had occurred on the planet Mars; gas clouds were moving toward Earth. Then more dance music. A little later, the next breaking news alert: A strange flying object had been sighted in New Jersey. And more music. Shortly afterward, a reporter reported live how an alien emerged from his capsule and destroyed everything in his path with a jet of fire. Fleeing people, screams, and… the broadcast ends.

Throughout the program, it was repeatedly emphasized that it was fiction. Specifically, a radio play by a 22-year-old named Orson Welles. The young director had adapted the 1898 novel "The War of the Worlds" into a radio version that was ingenious for its time. Welles, along with the crew of New York's Mercury Theatre, had staged the alien invasion as a news report.

A supposed music program was interrupted by breaking news reports, eyewitness accounts, and expert interviews, lending the radio play such credibility that

Orson Welles: The 'alien invasion' that fooled America - BBC News

 

fixaters gonna fixate

 

It's also quite amusing how many intellectuals between 1920 and 1960 seriously tried to get their hands on the Necronomicon

 

After some moderate usage of ChatGPT4 throughout this year, I think "Al" is only really useful as a data base. A good personal assistant for when you can't remember something. Just leave it at that. Like "Do you know any good curry recipes with mushrooms?", or "can you list 10 best vegetable sources of vitamin c?", "please compare nutritional profiles of apples, oranges, and bananas." That's what it's useful for and it's really helpful imo. You can also ask it about "that well known film from the 80s about robots who escaped from a space colony?" and stuff like that.

I asked it various things to see how it reacts and figured it's of no use for philosophising, especially about mental problems. It encourages narcissism which we already have way too much of due to social media. This is going to be a big problem for many people and society in general. People will become alienated even more. As if smartphones weren't enough.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 8:17 PM

I mostly agree with this but there is another problem.
I was fortunate to allow myself an extremely good education. I will give you a good example of where education has nothing to do with it. It is the drilling down to every possible request and interpretation of what is requested at developer level.
A.I. is like a small child with a massive brain.
For example, if you ask an A.I and it will be different and a variable result depending on which you ask...
'Create a photorealistic 3D style white marble veined square slab with an alpha transparent background".
Unless you tell it to face you directly into that request and tell it that it does not have permission to do anything else, it can angle it in any possible direction within a 360 degree position. some A.I's will render it and on the final pass, make both the outside and inside alpha transparent.

It is still not equipped to understand fully yet. It is still at that stage where a father says to his small son "Shake a leg son' (hurry up) and the son shakes his leg instead. They have a lot more information from every culture, dialect and vocabulary to enter into the A.I before it will become fully useful and that is my only argument. It is still in child stages. It will get better over time though.

 

I do not disagree with this statement but that is the developer's fault for choosing the areas it gets its information from. It is not the A.I's fault. It is the developer's that need to be more selective on where the A.I gets its information from.
If they chose online manuscripts and non-Wikipedia bibliographies, references and citations from factual sources and forced it to compare the facts of each, only putting forward the ones that were close to identical, avoiding social media completely, the results would be much better.
Wikipedia is considered a tertiary source, not primary or even secondary in any University that still gives a shit about their education and not just money. It is only used to validate the primary or secondary source as a reinforcement and nothing else. This is because anyone can enter information into it, qualified or not. the narcissism is the developer's fault for allowing the A.I. to learn it from social interactions.

 

Last edited: Dec 6, 2025 at 8:58 PM

for others it is reading news, watching porn, googleing for products, playing ego shooters or chatting with friends. where is the difference? nothing new here. put a human, a screen and a mouse in a room and the human will become a robot.