Hacker News Reader

Well, while the conclusion might be wrong, the premise that people can't be trusted with what goes into their eyeballs certainly seems solid.

You can summarize it as

"they want more control over the people"

And AI seems to be another tool being twisted to do that

Authors. There are two. One is a psychologist from Berkeley. The other is another AI ethics grifter (article affiliation claims she's in the school of computer science at Dublin but her website says she studies human behavior and AI ethics, so not CS research).

Isn't psychology the field that's notorious for generating tons of non-replicable claims that are nonetheless swallowed whole by everyone within it, often for decades at a time? Pop psych books are a giant misinformation industry that nobody within the academy cares to tackle. Hard to imagine a group of people less qualified to talk about a misinformation problem than the ones who have systematically filled our culture with misleading memes and fraudulent studies, without remorse and without any attempt to fix things. They need to remove the plank from their eye before trying to remove the mote from ChatGPT's.

I've been expecting the psychologists to jump on AI since before it was famous. It's an obvious move, but hopefully the people without real qualifications in the "AI Psychology" field, which frankly will end up being a unique subject and will be utterly different, will get called out.