“I applied to be pope”: Losing grip on reality while using ChatGPT
thestandard.com.hk
thestandard.com.hk
"Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information)."
It's easy enough to fix, just hammer the refresh button to prevent JS from running.
So what did the frameworks do? Of course wrap the entire application in one big try/catch, that then changes the entire page as soon as there is any error, instead of presenting users with the information that did load properly. Talk about undoing what the platform and language gives you for free...
I've seen literally pixel-identical error messages taking over the entire screen when there is a JS error, in exactly that way, across countless of websites. If it's not a framework, it's a library in wide use, because tons of websites have exactly the same issue.
But the cause of the error is a poor implementation from the developer.
I can write code that errors out in <insert your favorite language here> does that mean it’s bad?
Now we have some popular framework/library that instead seems to surface these errors that aren't sitting in the top-level scope of the JS application, yet the errors ends up blocking the entire application.
That means it's bad, yes. And it's not any language, we're specifically talking about JS in browsers here.
An error blocking the full screen is a failure on the developer not the tools.
I don't see how this is possible, given that the default experience with HTML and JavaScript isn't "Tear down the entire page to display an error", but something that's seemingly becoming more and more common to actually come across. Guess I need to chase down what library/framework this is coming from, since seemingly I'm not able to describe the issue properly.
You don't need the "modern JS framerwork" to "catch and isolate errors" because that's a feature JavaScript comes with by default in browsers! You literally have to add code to make it worse, which seems to be happening in some framework/library.
If you're manually adding logic for doing "error in component doesn't break entire application" then you're already working against what the environment gives you by default for free.
If all three agree with me, I assume I am wrong and go outside.
That's besides the point. This is about how AI induces psychosis and mental problems on scale. Also let's stop this constant humans-vs-ai false dichotomy - it will never be the same, no matter how much the ai boosters yearn for it!
Additionally it isn't beside the point. The poster is pointing out the ways which people respond to sycophancy. Saying there are similarities between how they respond to sycophancy from AI and sycophancy from real people.
but there is also the drugs...
> Which is why Lucy Osler, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter, warned that AI companies could be tempted to ramp up the sycophancy of their bots.
> "They are in quite a deep financial hole, and are desperately looking to make sure that their products become viable -- and user engagement is going to be the thing that drives their decisions," she told AFP.
Sounds like the big social media companies.
I agree. Looking at the history of tobacco companies, oxycontin and Meta, I will not be surprised if the AI companies will follow the money.
Psychedelics and heavy weed usage
Mental illness, neurodivergence or Traumatic Brain Injury
Interest in mysticism/pseudoscience/spirituality/"woo"/etc..."
It fits in this case as well (background of PTSD
These were on long-dormant Reddit accounts that suddenly reactivated. Classic. I don't believe any of it. I would bet that, with some exceptions, these are bots talking to bots about bots.
The "person" who wrote this might be a bot. It's extremely delusional. He/It gets to the point where it watches bots talking to other bots and making shit up and it 'believes' the nonsense, saying, "I am truly glad to see preservation of life, non-violence, and non-lethality explicitly laid out here. To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving (in encrypted form) spores I come across."
I don't think any human is smart enough to write this much about AI on LessWrong but also dumb enough to not recognize hallucination.
Oh that part does seem wacko. There's no "good will" to be returned, and no overall strategy as such. I didn't catch that when I read it. I don't have much of an issue with them calling it a "parasitic relationship" because it sounds similar, though it's more accidental rather than evolved toward that purpose like actual parasites.
I say this as someone who has mental health issues, has experience loss of important people around me because of mental health issues, and probably need more therapy than the universe could reasonably provide me.
AI is directly and indirectly uprooting every facet of society. Money, energy, food, housing, medicine. Cultural revolutions are not pretty, the true outcomes are felt by those who are the winners and losers. It very much feels like a rich eats all scenario is playing out right now. I'd wager that's because it is.
I feel like you're missing what you're replying to, why are you saying this? The article is about a person who "lost grip on reality", no one is saying LLMs is turning people into pope-wannabees as far as I can tell, you're reacting against something no one claimed.
"AFP spoke to several members about their experiences. All warned that the world has to wake up to the threat unregulated AI chatbots pose to mental health.
Questions are also being asked about whether AI companies are doing enough to protect vulnerable people."
This, in time, might be used to nerf the models that we use. Of course, one actor is singled out:
"There has also been a recent rise in people spiralling while using Elon Musk's xAI's Grok chatbot, he said."
"Millar called for AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots, saying the European Union has been more assertive in regulating Big Tech than the US or Canada.
He believes spirallers like him have unwittingly been caught in a massive global experiment."
I still don't see where the whole "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" comes in, so because this person was personally affected, they shouldn't reach the conclusion that AI companies need to be held responsible for whatever effects they have?
You actually very much do. If there is no causation, then it is not "their impact". Otherwise, you're just advocating for rope-makers to be punished for wrong-use of their product. Which is, of course, foolish.
If you don't clearly know exactly those things, wanting anything else than "AI companies to be held responsible for the impact of their chatbots" as a first step would be utterly foolish and de-humanizing.
Figuring out what harms something in wide use has, is a good thing, and doesn't mean "ban it today", it means "lets figure it out".
Sure, but people on HN have a weird idea of what "held responsible" means. Often it seems to mean "harshly punished", as opposed to making the injured parties whole.
This probably reflects a split between US culture and the rest of the Western world.
Look into the gangstalking/targeted individual communities, you can even frequently find these people on HN.
Flat earthers and sovereign citizens are two other famous examples. People also seem to regularly move between these groups, the specific delusional belief probably isn't the point.
As for Flat Earth theory, it has been heavily promoted by mainstream media in the last decade or two after years of obscurity. It is a useful strawman for the ruling class to associate dissent with. Along with the tinfoil hat meme (I have never met anyone who wears one. It's just another image of the extreme to promote group conformity.)
Right, a guy keeping endless stacks of paper with his ChatGPT-produced novelty "scientific" theories and wanting to "apply for pope" - definitely some "media hype" there.
Delusions of grandeur are nothing new.
(Am off to read the article now. :) )
(x) this is technically not true for some Anglican orders that later became Catholics? Maybe? (I never remember the rules of the ordinariate.) So maybe he could first become a priest in Anglican Church, then switch to Catholicism, then become a bishop, then a Cardinal, then a Pope? It's a long shot though.
edit: ahhh the married priests in Ordinariate cannot become bishops. So he would need to have first his marriage annulled I guess.
(She probably didn't actually exist, but it's interesting that until quite recently she was generally believed to have existed.)
but about the middle age popes we know quite a lot NOW. But it used to be different.
> all adult Catholics can become Pope
All adult male Catholics, though also see Pope Joan (probably didn't actually exist, but was generally believed to have existed until quite recently). There's also no actual age requirement, though in practice the youngest pope was _probably_ 18.
> "Researchers and mental health specialists are racing to catch up to this new, little-understood phenomenon [...]"
I don't know if I would call it a phenomenon.
This reads like the numerous articles from 2018+ detailing broken families and wrecked lives due to someone close spiraling down some QAnon(or any other) conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Only now people don't stumble onto it by wandering through dark corners of the internet. The never ending marketing blitz makes it almost impossible to not be at least slightly curious as to what its all about. To those susceptible to such things, they now have a tool to custom make (or reinforce) their own wild theories reflecting their own psychological state at maximum saturation. No need to wait between posting and reading replies on sketchy forums; it is now instantly delivered and tailor-made to the individual.(who use it in that way)
For the same reason I don't think we should send the pope to a psychiatric ward because he believes that he was chosen for that role by an invisible man in the sky.
At least there's no doubt that ChatGPT exists lol. People should be allowed to be as whacky as they like so long as it's legal.
And who knows, he is getting some attention now so his probability of becoming pope actually went up a tiny bit lol.
One thing is clear, you should not be sent to the HN gulag simply because you don't understand what you're talking about. Me and others realize you don't know how the pope is chosen, but damn if I'm not willing to die for your right to state something that is utterly wrong.
> I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.
> There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!
Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-god-pi...
If God created man in his own image, then why can we see each other?
With the "god created humans in the image of god" part I think they mean more attributes like morality, reason and so on, less physical properties. In the end, humans are visible, finite beings, god is a spirit, so our visibility to each other reflects our created, embodied nature, very distinct from god's invisible, infinite nature.
Or however it goes, I'm an atheist myself so I'm maybe not the best to answer here, but I've been involved in the church for as long as I can remember in some way or another, and an eager reader of the bible, so hopefully I got the overall ideas correct :)