l thing. Also did a full character study of him. (Post edit couch Gregor from 2025 ere) He handled the quantitive and qualitative data and turned into knowledge. (2026, Wayback machine has captures Andy Masley )
Lets try and visualize
That's not to say that there's issues of suicide, covered by verysaneai
Even as there's been articles of it's use as a prosthetic intelligence, then Andy Masley did an accountability thing again.
Phew! That's a lotta links, (I don't expect you to click on them all, I'm still learning to direct response after all.)
Nope, I don't think this covers psychosis, it's reminding me of the way atheists accused theists that they are crazy. This was refuted, and it's not going to happen. The insane asylum ain't coming back.
No no no, let's not try to bring the insane asylum back. With the method being in the madness. Enforced madness that target vulnerable groups is a no- go.
Criminalising the users, while also treating the medium of this as a thing with autonomy, it ain't.
Moving past of the Victorian insanity accusations, we are to make it our pursuit to see how we can decipher and see mental illness and disability as a thing to go with, and that means AI too. I could point out a bunch of men and suits with money as a bunch of freaks, yet that does not go to the heart of ideological and material conditions. It's going to get unhistorical.
Eschatology, End times have been with us all this passages, Yet's that associated with all cults like Scientology and bebops comet. Including, I must say, Atheism science fiction.
So, this is where they rehabilitate bad figures.
Post edit, Peter coffin did a video on it.
(Not an endorsement, he may have used AI in the thumbnail, this is an Editorial ON ai, not endorsement, that speaks more of your epistemology if you see it that way. )
Ari Cohn
@aricohn.com· 2mo
I don't want OpenAI scanning conversations and calling the police either, but when you say AI companies should face massive liability when anyone gets hurt, you're asking for the most extreme, CYA results. That's what happens, and has always happened, when you make policy with the plaintiffs' bar."
Guess they need not go scorched earth policy on this. It's like videogames panic basically.
This reminds me of this opinion
Yellow wallpaper will come to the way.
"It’s the new buzzword. The mascot for our newest cultural outrage. Coined in 2023 by Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard, this term (that is not a recognized clinical diagnosis) entered the mainstream lexicon around mid-2025 when it started getting media coverage. I mean, can you blame them? It gets clicks. The general public is already uneasy about AI technology and its economic and existential implications. It has all the makings of a sexy, sensationalist headline. Making it the boogeyman was the natural next step.
The media runs with “AI psychosis” without interrogating the term, without noting that it isn’t clinical (and psychiatric diagnoses should not be thrown out by outlets like The Guardian ANYWAYS ffs), and without asking who benefits from the narrative. And then when something tragic happens, the non-clinical term gives them a ready-made explanation that points at the chatbot and away from a more complicated and nuanced situation."
So, it's the media's fault again.
 |
So yeah, it's complicated
I want to take off my professional hat momentarily and just be a human being.
What in the actual f*** are we doing.
I cannot believe I have to write this, but it is unacceptable to position oneself as a moral arbiter on humanity itself. It is unacceptable to take a personal philosophical disagreement with how other adults are living their lives and re-code it as a public health emergency. It is unacceptable to write a paper proposing surveillance, classification, and conditional withdrawal of relational warmth from people, and have that paper be assigned as undergraduate course material at MIT.
