My pet theory is one of ontological conscienceness paredoila. Just like face paredoila is a heightened sensitivity to seeing faces in inanimate objects, we observe consciousness through behavior including language with varying sensitivity. While our face detection circuitight be triggered by knots on a tree, we have other inputs which negate it so that we ultimately conclude that it is not in fact a face.
The same principal applies to consciousness. The consciousness trigger is triggered, but for some people the negating input can't overcome it and they conclude that consciousness really is in there.
I've observed a number of negating reasons like, a disbelief in substrate independence and knowledge of failure modes, but I'm curious what an exhaustive list would look like. Does your consciousness circuit get triggered? I know mine does. What beliefs override it preventing you from concluding AI is conscious?
When previous generation LLMs spit out absurdist slop I think it was much easier for people avoid the fluency trap.
In the short term, but over time the patterns get more obvious and the illusion breaks down. Generative AI is incredible at first impressions.
That said, someone diving too far into the "dog parent" vibe is annoying to me personally. I think it's more comprehensible than loving `sycophant.sh`.
If you're confused about this go seek help now.
It's not psychosis, but it's also not healthy to blur the line between a pet and a child, but at least a pet is a living thing that can know you and have a relationship with you.
But if someone's calling their laptop their baby and carrying it around in a baby carriage, I'd be comfortable calling that psychosis.